|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 5, 2005 14:48:24 GMT -5
What are you opinions on gay marriage?
I know it's a very controversial issue. I myself used to be against it, but now I'm all for it. I have talked to numerous people, conservatives, moderates and liberals. The arguments for and against are both very solid. In the end though, I have examined what I personally believe, and have decided that what I believe requires that I support gay marriage.
So before anyone responds, I might as well tell you all that I think about the matter. Be warned, this post is going to be long, since I think that there are a lot of elements to take into account when discussing the issue, especially since my Christianity adds a new layer to it. A lot of this is copied/pasted from recent blog post I wrote. Some of it is new stuff I've thought between now and then.
Here we go.
The issue of homosexual marriage is one that has ignited aggression in the church, and for good reason. Christians argue: I do not support gay marriage because I do not approve of homosexuality. The response usually is something like: You are close-minded and are violating the rights of homosexauls.
Although I am a Christian, I think I might as well come out and say it: I support gay marriage. It is a reluctant support, of that I am certain. I do not particularly want to support it, and yet, when I try to examine all the aspects that much be taken into account, I find that I have to. Not only as an American, but as a Christian as well.
Before I go on, I must explain what I mean when I say that I "support gay marriage." I need to make it clear: I am not referring to the act itself. I do not support the idea of two gay people becoming married, because as a Christian I personally think homosexuality is a sin. What I mean when I say that I "support gay marriage" is that I support what the current debate has to do with: whether or not it should be allowed by law. I believe that, whether I agree with the act or not, homosexuals should legally be allowed to get married.
Now that that's out of the way, I am going to do my best to describe all the elements I have taken into account when coming to this conclusion:
1) I am a Christian, and as far as I can see, Christ does not support gay marriage. I have heard arguments that the Bible can be interpreted to not directly be against homosexuality, but I have yet to find such passages. Rather, I have found many passages (particularly Romans 1) which seem to directly condemn it. So, from a purely Christian standpoint, I must be against the act gay marriage. If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, my Christianity is one the only element to take into account when dealing with this issue, not to mention the fact that the act of gay marriage is not what we are currently debating. There is always the fact that...
2) I am an American. Many people have argued that our founding fathers were strong Christians and modeled the Constitution after those beliefs. I somewhat agree with the second part, but not with the first. I find it hard to believe that everyone responsible for the Constitution was Christian. Also, if you take a look at the Constitution, it is not a very rigid piece of rules. It seems to be designed in a flexible way; the founding fathers knew that times would change, and that the United States would have to change with them. They left the Constitution open to amendments, and never directly supported nor opposed social issues. Looking at the Constitution will give us no direct answer on the matter of gay marriage.
However, I feel it does provide an indirect one. The Bill of Rights in particular seems to be founded on one main idea: equality. The concept that we are all equal before God. We are free to say what we want, believe what we want, print what we want, etc. According to the idea of "separation of church and state", the government cannot hold any particular religion its ideals as more important than those of another. This means that a Christian President should not officially support Christianity above all other religions. It means that his/her faith should not be treated superior to those of others.
Anyways, the bottom line is that America was foundedo n the idea of equality and equal opportunities. Which means that...
3) As an American, I cannot oppose gay marriage. To do so would be against the very idea of equality that America is associated with - or at least, used to be associated with. The government cannot promote one religion over another. It cannot promote one age group over another. It cannot (though it wasn't always this way) promote one sex over another. In the same way, I do not think it should promote one sexual orientation over another. To say that heterosexual marriage is okay, but homosexual marriage is not, goes against what I hold to be the most important ideal of the foundation of the United States: that government favoritism should not be tolerated.
This is the main conflict: from a religious standpoint, I shouldn't support the option of gay marriage because I do not support homosexuality, and yet from a political one I must. Some may ask: which is more important to you, the fact that you're a Christian or the fact that you're a citizen of the United States? The first one, obviously. However, the next important aspect to take into consideration is...
4) Although I am a Christian, others are not. Although I may oppose homosexual marriage for religious reasons, that doesn't matter to a person who isn't a Christian. From a purely American and human rights standpoint, they have no reason not to support it.
And that is what I especially dislike about the church these days: they simply cannot understand that non-Christians look at things from a completely different perspective. If you tell them, "Don't support gay marriage; Jesus preached against homosexuality," they'll probably respond, "What does that matter to me?" Christians look at things (or try to, anyways) from the perspective of Christ. Non-Christians do not. So telling them they shouldn't support gay marriage because of what Christ said not only is pointless, but probably annoying to the non-Christian as well.
The next, and perhaps most important point I'd like to make is...
5) God gave mankind free will. It all started in the Garden of Eden, when God said: "Here's a fruit. I recommend you don't eat it, but the choice is yours." God didn't say, "It is impossible for you to eat it" or "I will force you not to eat it." He said, "Obey Me if you want nothing but Me. Disobey Me if you would rather please yourself."
God gave us a choice. And as Christians, we should do the same to others. We should not try to force them to believe what we believe, or to forbid them from believing something else. Although I do think Christ would be against gay marriage, I don't think he would approve of the government not offering both options to their full extent. If we offer people heterosexual marriage, we must also offer them homosexual marriage. The choice of their sexual orientation, and what they do about it, is up to them. If we marry liars and murderers and thieves and adulterers and other sinners, it is not fair to not offer the same opportunity to homosexuals.
Christ said, "Love me, and follow me." He did not say, "Force others to do the same." It is my opinion that opposing the offering of gay marriage not only goes against against the ideals the United States was founded on, but also the attitude of God towards His creation.
As my final point, I would like to use an example of what I mean that isn't related to gay marriage...
6) Put yourself in the shoes of somebody else. Imagine you are a Jew. However, the government is run by a Nazi President. This President passes a law saying that everyone is free to have a high-paying job...except for Jews. Jews can only receive minimum wage, because the President's personal beliefs are that Jews are inferior to everyone else.
You're a Jew. I'm guessing you wouldn't really like that. Everyone else would, but you wouldn't. And for good reason: it's not fair. The government is denying you a privilege that everyone else has simply because of your race.
Now imagine you are a homosexual in today's society. The President makes it legal for everyone to marry...except for homosexuals. Homosexuals can live together and have relationships with each other, but they can't get married. They can only get "minimum wage." Why? Because the government (and many sections of society as well) believe that homosexuals are inferior because of thier sexual orientation.
Can you see the similarities? If the tables were turned, and the law claimed only homosexual marriages were legal, I'm guessing you'd all be upset. You'd protest and say, "It's not fair! I have the right to marry as well! If this country is based on equality, I should be allowed the same rights as everyone else!" And you'd be right.
That is why I support gay marriage (civily, not religiously) - not the act itself, but the existence of the option. Although I do not support homosexuality, that doesn't mean homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, any more than it would be fair to deny marriage to any other type of sinner, or person whose lifestyle I did not approve of.
I may not like it, but to oppose gay marriage would go against the basic beliefs I have about God and my country.
|
|
Awaceman
New Member
The MUGEN King
Posts: 12
|
Post by Awaceman on Aug 7, 2005 17:48:14 GMT -5
Wow, that's quite a post. Very forceful, backed up, and understandable. However, there is but one fatal flaw. Do you really think you can relate Jews to Gays and get away with it? Jews are what they are: Jewish humans. Gays don't have a classification. They are just humans. If you want heterosexuals to be treated the same as homosexuals then all classifications must be dropped, so that we would all be classified "humans." The U.S. must fail to recognize religion, race and all other classifications. This is bad for Christianity. We shouldn't allow the world to NOT NOTICE the difference that we represent. You're saying the government should own up to equality and all that. Granted, they should! According to their moral standards and what the secular world has to say about it... there's no reason not to! You are against the act of Gay marriage... but you blatantly state you don't wanna do nothin' about it! You'll allow the government to give them the choice, and you'll probably just use subtle influence. Is that it... just influence? I'd rather play it on the safe side and block the thing all together, and THEN try influence. That would be easier don't you think? How are you going to convince someone who is madly in love with someone of the same sex to leave their partner? According to their world view, they're legal and they're in love. To them it would be stupid to give up their happiness. Sure, God can work miracles but lets make it easier! Lets make it so that the whole of the weight of what they are doing wrong is bearing down upon them. People who know their sins are wrong are more willing to give them up and turn to the light... don't ya think? Now, I realize that my statements may cause some resentment to the secular eye, but that just goes to show that most secular people have no idea who we really are. In fact, yea! I have an example! A fellow named Angus M. who I met in Costa Rica had NO clue as to what we Christians were all about. He was with us at a friends house for a while and he kept pointing out how weird our life style was to him. Anyways, the point is, is that he was astonished to find out just how very different we Christians really are. Look, my thoughts on all of this are as follows: --> We shouldn't judge those outside the church. God will judge those guys. However, good ole' Paul wrote that we should judge those within' the church. (You didn't address this, but I think you would have said what I'm saying had you thought of it.)I am firmly against mixing gays into Christianity, they don't fit. Gay Christian churches (yes, they exist) should most definitely read what ole' Pablo says on the subject: 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."m Corinthians 5:12-13 NIV (The reason the "sup"-text letter "m" is there is because it is in the Bible to point out all the places of reference.) Anyways, enough of that... on to your argument. --> I believe as Christians that we should affect the world in its entirety with our views. Some people may not like it, some people may beat us up, but thats a price we got to pay. (Or not pay, considering how things play out in one's life.) Therefore, if we are going to affect the world, we've got to affect all aspects of the world. What I got from your post was that we should just butt-out of the government and let "America" take over. This is a war between American secularists and American Christians. Don't let them take over! Lets make all ways point to God!
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 7, 2005 20:07:15 GMT -5
Okay. I don't understand your first paragraph. Jews are humans, and homosexuals are humans. We're all humans. I see no reason to treat one group of humans better than another just because they happen to be of a different sexual orientation.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that I'm right in terms of equality and what the government should do. However, you think Christians should not support gay marriage because we need to make them realize the error they are making, so they'll turn back?
I hate to break it to you, but not allowing them to marry isn't going to do anything to "bring them back to the light." Homosexuals have been around for years and years and years without being allowed to get married, and they're doing just fine. Not allowing them to get married isn't doing anything except making them hate us Christians, for good reason - we're not being fair to them.
If you want to get through to the secular world, you need to get this idea of, "Let's make them realize the full weight of what they're doing!" out of your head. People who act on this type of thinking generally tend to be annoying, and turn people away from Christianity rather than towards it. Homosexuals don't want you to go up to them and say, "You're a sinner! That's why you can't get married! You're going to hell unless you repent!" They want people to actually treat them like human beings and love them. They want Christians who are willing to say, "You know what? I don't agree with your choice of lifestyle, but let's be friends."
You said it yourself: the government should support its idea of equality. However, you're also implying that things need to be done to give Christians more rights and advantages over everyone else, so we can spread our message.
That is extremely, extremely wrong in my opinion. You wouldn't want a Muslim to have more rights than you, just so they can spread their message, would you? You wouldn't want a homosexual to have the right to marry, but not you. Yes, in this case Christians have the advantage, but that just makes the rest of the world hate us even more than they already do. It makes Christians appear even more like many Christians already do: as cold-hearted individuals who would rather take away your rights to try and win you over to Christ than actually treat you as an equal and love you like Christ would.
In my opinion, that's just as bad as racism, sexism, or any other ideology that looks down on people because of a certain characteristic. You said it yourself, that the government, from a legal and political point of view, needs to treat people equally. Except you think Christians should be "more equal than others", in the words of George Orwell. Acting as though there is a "war" and we should treat anyone who isn't a Christian as inferior or as a physical enemy rather than just a spiritual one, isn't something I want to get involved in. I wouldn't like it if the tables were turned and I was the one being denied rights.
|
|
Awaceman
New Member
The MUGEN King
Posts: 12
|
Post by Awaceman on Aug 7, 2005 20:37:19 GMT -5
I really think this needs to be a three-way discussion before we really get into it. At least then we'd have someone to agree with. Its like I said before at the Texas meeting... if we don't start pointing out the stuff we like in each argument then we'll end up both angry at each other. Or worse, we'll talk about each other behind the other's back. So please, I'd like to get someone else into this. It seems that it will be quite a long discussion. (And yes, it will probably be only the one of us who gets mad... but you wouldn't want either of us to do so now would you? )
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 7, 2005 22:48:42 GMT -5
I won't get mad. If other people's opinions offended me, I wouldn't have started an online forum. ;D
Whether or not you get mad is up to you. And if other people want to discuss this, they can. But I think both of us are mature enough to discuss the issue on our own for a while if we have to.
As for what I liked about your argument: I liked how you said you thought the government should be equal. I didn't like how you said Christians should have an advantage over others in order to help them see the truth. That seemed kinda contradictory.
|
|
Awaceman
New Member
The MUGEN King
Posts: 12
|
Post by Awaceman on Aug 8, 2005 21:52:25 GMT -5
You most definitely are the immature one in this conversation Andrew... I was hoping you'd at LEAST give me a helpful "Amen!" or "Right on!" for my whole speech about no gay Christians. But now I see who you are. You're a liberal who gets distracted from being nice to his friend just to prove a point. You didn't even really show me something you liked! You just used one peace of my argument to use it to advance YOUR cause. Thats not a real nice thing to do! "As for what I liked about your argument: I liked how you said you thought the government should be equal. I didn't like how you said Christians should have an advantage over others in order to help them see the truth. That seemed kinda contradictory." These arguments can be handled in a kindly manner you know... I guess I'll just say what I have to say then. What...are your thoughts on legalizing murder? And don't tell me that murder is a different context! All sins are equal in God's eyes! One small lie can keep you from Heaven; you know this. However, if you have some argument against it picture this hypothetical situation: You LOVE to murder people, its been your joy in life ever since you left college. You think it's wrong that the government claims that your love is bad and you resent it for that. "After all," you thought to yourself, "you're a sensible person, all you have is a different love than everybody else." Anyways, the government eventually (and coincidently) discovered your schemes when you tripped over the waiting line at a Burger King and your unregistered pistol falls to the floor in front of an off-duty police chief. Needless to say they investigate and find out that its bullets were the exactly the same as the bullets associated with quite a few murders their county had been experiencing. Sure enough, the evidence kept pilling up. It was about a man in his mid-20's who was seen by some eye witnesses. The witnesses all described you. And eventually the evidence became unmistakably solid. So you went to court. There, your lawyer explained how you are no different than a homosexual. This, needless to say, caused allot of uproar in the room. Apparently, people didn't like for the lawyer to associate homosexuals with murderers. "There not the same!" cried one, and "What kind of lawyer are you?" cried another. After the noise had died down and the judge had restored order, he asked your lawyer to elaborate. "Well, you see," said your lawyer, "I thought this land was based on equality and equal opportunities for everyone. Homosexuals have allot of similarities to my friend Andraw Johnkson here..." he said while getting quite nervous. After a brief pause he added "for example: Homosexuals were once normal people," (This caused minor uproar from some homosexuals in the back of the court room who thought they were, in fact, quite normal. However, the Judge quickly restored order.) "And to elaborate even further... no one was ever born a homosexual. Just as," added your lawyer with a slight pause "no one was ever born a murderer!" After another pause that seemed to make everyone shift in their seat, he added, "Homosexuals eventually decided somewhere along the line in their lives that they would do something that would make them feel good. Just as this murderer," he said while pointing to you, "decided somewhere along the line that he would do something... that made him feel good." He added what he thought was the "coup-de-grace", "In fact, I happen to know quite a few people who like to do something, and it's very original. They like to eat potato chips on Sundays while hopping on one foot and trying to chant like an old native American chief." With this on the mind, he suddenly got the idea to demonstrate this little dance. "They say: 'Aiya-haha-Aiya-haha-*crunch*-Aiya-haha...' and so forth," he finished. "So you see," he said, "my friends are 'human' just like any other person, but they just decided to do something that they liked. Don't we have the right to be somebody who does what they love to do? Shouldn't we give people the option to do these kinds of things. Wouldn't it be nice if they could do that... I mean, after all, its not as bad as it sounds. Thank you, I have no further arguments," and with that he sat down. Now by this time, your face was beginning to look like this: . You thought that with the price you paid to hire this guy he'd say something like: "He wasn't even there," or, "Another man was there who framed him." or even, "My client has suffered from temporary insanity," but you didn't think he'd say something like this!" You looked around and found that most of the people in the crowd had your same kind of face as well. Anyways, the Judge now had given the prosecuting lawyer a chance to speak. He said, "Murder, your honor, is 'THAT BAD' I'm afraid. Murder must stand its ground for being 'THAT BAD!' And, as you can probably guess, the plaintiff has not made a defense, he's just tried to make the jury and even you, your honor, to... to... ...," he rolled his hand as if he was trying to roll the answer out of himself, when he continued, "well... sympathize with you. He tried to make you feel sad for this benign killer. I believe he was even trying to get the constitution amended, JUST FOR THIS CASE! It was all very clear when he said, 'Wouldn't it be nice if...' IF, your honor, he said IF! However, I'm sure that everyone here agrees that to take another persons life is a privilege owned by the united states military and other law abiding officers. This man doesn't meet those requirements! And that's... well... that's all I have to say! Um, no further arguments...," and with that the Judge announced a short recession where the jury went off to take a vote. The vote was unanimous... Andraw Johnkson would be sent to jail... for life. However, as you were being taken away, your lawyer kept on yelling, "It's not FAIR...," and, "there a people too! They need rights!" However, all Andraw Johnkson could hear was the sound of his own thoughts saying, "That's the last time I hire an attorney whose add was place atop a urinal." And with that Andraw was locked away and the county was just a little bit safer from then on.
(Watch an episode of "Americas Most Wanted" to see these "murder loving" people. The "BTK" killer was a prime example of a man who loved to kill.)
Andrew this is what you said... "That is why I support gay marriage (civilly, not religiously) - not the act itself, but the existence of the option." I disagree. We shouldn't give gays the "option," because there IS no "option." Marriage is a privilege given to us by the government. Gays don't meet the requirements for this privilege. Yes, the constitution can possibly be amended. However, you need to think about it! Do you think it would be easier to stop "the act itself" without our current laws in place. Personally, I think not. Why? Because I used common sense. If gay marriages are suddenly legal then more and more gays would pop up all over the place. You need to read more of that Corinthians man, but before I show a verse to you, you need to meditate on it's meaning. The things Paul quotes here are apparently sayings that the ancient brothers and other people of that time would say as something common. (Sort of like the old Diet Coke commercial: "Do what feels good.") It says, 12" 'Everything is permissible for me' -- but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible for me' -- but I will not be mastered by anything." 1 Corinthians 6:12 Another one is more to the point, 23 "Everything is permissible"— but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"— but not everything is constructive. 1 Corinthians 10:23 Don't you see? Us Christians letting the government pass a law that says that gays can marry is not only un-beneficial, but it is against the rules God set down for all people! Allowing the Government to pass the law to allow gay marriages is permissible... but not constructive. I don't care what you say to try to disprove it, gays will multiply like rabbits if we let them get married. Sure they'll be more susceptible at "being our friends," but there will be to many of them to convert. Also, it will be harder than you think to convert one. They won't want to leave their lifestyle anymore than I want to leave mine. They'll have numbers! They'll have peers! So what if it's your "civic duty" to allow an option of gay marriage! So what if it's easier to be a person's friend when you accept their lifestyle! Are you to lazy to make a bigger effort? Why not convert them to Christianity while gay marriages are banned, and then worry about our civic duties. We could always We have a higher calling towards all things beneficial. We need to befriend them now, and explain this to them! Well so much for that, I believe I'm through. Sorry if I insulted you in those first few paragraphs. I got a little emotional.
Now as for my end of the bargain, I really liked how you demonstrated the beliefs of others in your original comment. We Christians need to start seeing from other people's perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 8, 2005 23:48:28 GMT -5
I didn't mean to offend you or make you think I was being mean. I just tend to be blunt and straight to the point. I did agree with your statement about not having gay Christian churches - by that I mean, churches that preach that homosexuality is not a sin, or that are pastored by homosexuals.
I, however, prefer to remain on the fence when it comes to the argument about whether or not homosexuals can be Christians. Let's not get into that.
Also, please don't call me a liberal. I prefer to remain unaffiliated with any group. I'm conservative in some issues, more liberal in others.
Your whole "murder trial" thing kinda confuse me. So I'm just gonna address one point you mentioned: the whole "homosexuals were not born homosexual" argument. That has not been proven. There is some evidence to suggest homosexuality may in fact be genetic. The point is up in the air, so let's not bring it into our arguments.
Basically, I got the impression you're trying to say that murder and homosexuality are equal sins in the eyes of God. I agree with you. However, keep in mind that we are not discussing the morality of homosexuality itself. This whole debate has to do with how homosexuals should be seen and treated by the government, not by God. And that's where it is different than murder. It is extremely different, for these reasons:
1) There are laws against murder. There are no laws against being homosexual.
2) In murder, someone is hurt. With homosexuality, nobody is hurt. It is simply a relationship, the only difference being that it is between two members of the same sex.
3) By arguing that being a homosexual is somehow a legal crime, you might as well say that being black, or Muslim, or female is a legal crime as well. Homosexuality is not an act, but a state of being. Murder is an act.
Keep in mind that we are not discussing homosexuality. We are discussing whether or not the government should recognize a homosexual couple as married or not, in the eyes of the law.
The last part of your post dealt with that, so that's what I'm going to concentrate on.
You said that homosexuals do not meet the requirement for marriage? I beg to differ. They don't meet it in the eyes of God, but we're not talking about God, we're talking about the United States government. The government that is founded on the idea of equality for all people, regardless of religious beliefs, race, sex, etc. It is not written anywhere in the Constitution that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. If it was, Massachusetts and other states would never have been permitted to recognize gay marriage.
Also, forget about "the act itself". Once again, this is not about the act itself. It is about whether or not homosexuals should be recognized by the government as married, if they choose to be. Doing so will not stop the act, but neither will the current state of not allowing it. Please get this idea of "the act itself" out of your head. That is not what this topic is about. We are not debating whether or not homosexuality is wrong, we are debating whether or not it is wrong for the government to recognize homosexual couples as married.
Also, you mentioned that if gay marriage is legalized, there will be more homosexuals. That is a common argument used by people against gay marriage - I disagree. That just doesn't seem logical to me.
People aren't going say, "Homosexuals can get married! I'm gonna be homosexual!" That's not what it's about at all. You don't choose a sexual orientation (if indeed it can be chosen) based on whether or not you can get married. People say, "I like the opposite sex/same sex. That means I'm heterosexual/homosexual." Whether or not they can get married has nothing to do with people being homosexual. It is a state of being.
You might argue, "Well if their marriage is legalized, more people will admit to being homosexual." That might be true - but it will not change the number of homosexuals there are, only the amount who are admitting it. And I don't think the amount who are admitting it will change much; these days homosexuality is so much more accepted that I doubt very many people hide it very much.
That seemed to be your main point about the whole "beneficial" thing. Well, I'm sorry, but I think that logic is flawed. Allowing homosexuals to marry won't produce more homosexuals, any more than allowing Christians to pray in public schools will produce more Christians.
And franky, while we're on the whole "beneficial" issue: I think our country would be more beneficial if homosexuals were allowed to be married. Just think about it:
1) The government would be treating everyone equally, as it's supposed to.
2) Homosexuals (and people like me) would be able to stop complaining.
3) Christians can rest assured that there will be no more homosexuals than before.
4) Homosexuals might be more open to Christianity since they won't feel like Christian morals are being forced on them against their will.
5) Maybe it would show Christians that homosexuals are actually human beings too, with the same rights as all of us, and stop prejudice. Then maybe Christians might actually start treating them like Christ would.
Now, before I stop, I'd like to draw one more comparison between the way the government should treat homosexuals and the way God treats mankind.
1) God loves us all the same. Agree? 2) He gives us all the same options, to their full extent: follow Him or not. He doesn't love the ones that follow Him any more/less than the others - they just made a better choice.
It should be the same way with the government:
1) The government shouldn't prefer one group of people over another, but rather view us all the same. 2) The government should give us all the same options, to their full extent. Homosexuals should not be given less rights than heterosexuals. The government shouldn't treat the people that make the "right" choice (in the Christian sense) any better/worse than the others.
Yes, I think homosexuality is wrong. So is turning away from God, but in the Garden of Eden God offered that choice to its full extent. This debate is not about the morality of homosexuality - it's about whether or not homosexuals should be given the same rights as everyone else; it's about offering them their rights to their "full extent."
|
|
souwa
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by souwa on Aug 9, 2005 9:37:31 GMT -5
I kinda wanted to stay away from this... but there are various things running in my mind, and I just can't keep them inside for too long. Firstly... I must say that both sides of the argument are backed up quite good. But also, let's always remember that we must make this a discussion leaving our pride away, and really seeking in our hearts what feels right. That probably means that... alright: you might hold on to some parts of your argument, but also accept some of the good parts of the other. I do not wish to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my opinion. To say the truth, I haven't dedicated as much time on this subject, probably not enough to debate it with you guys. But hey! Who said I was debating? I'm not expecting a counterclaim or a reply, I'm expecting someone to read this, and I want make sense of the many words that are running in my own head by writing them down... hehe. Ok. Let's start: Honestly, I have a problem with understanding how you (Candyman) are supporting gay marriage "civily, not religiously". The idea of marriage was created by God... not by the Government, not by men. And it is clearly stated in Genesis that it must be between a man and a woman. So it must be kept holy... because it was created by Him. Also... you (ARJ) mentioned that we should give homosexuals the options to their full extent. What you used to back up that argument is the example of the Garden of Eden... right? It's true... God did give Adam and Eve the option of sinning or not. It's free will.... and that's simply a result of His love to us. But... He did say: "mas del arbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal no comeras; porque el dia que de el comieres, ciertamente moriras" (Gen. 2:17) (Sorry, I dont have access to BibleGateway.com or other possible English Bible sources online in China. And I've only got my spanish Bible with me in here). He told Adam and Eve not to. He forbid it to them. Using your same example... The Government is giving the people the choice to be gay or not. They have the choice indeed... they have the freedom to make up their minds. By not granting marriage does not mean taking them the rights to be gays. God Himself, He also did give Adam and Eve the choice. But He guided them -He told them not to eat the fruit. There are some things that must be kept holy... like the Garden of Eden (no sinners allowed, right?). He warned them. He punished them. He surely did give them the right to choose, but He also told them there would consequences. The same way... people have the choice to be gay or not. They can have a relationship.. sure. But there are consequences.. .and one of them is that they cannot be married, simply because marriage is to deal with something that was created by God, and as I said... there are some things that must be kept holy. And... you said murder harms others, but being a homosexual does not. Think about that one... really. Gay influence can harm.. just not in a physical way (although it could turn out to be pretty physical.. but we dont want to go into that, right?). I am not against gay people... but I am against homosexuality the same way I am against murder, adultery, and all those (re-read Romans... homosexuality is a sin, and is mentioned among other sins: adultery, lying, avaricia... etc). I mean... God loves sinners, but He hates sin. It is true... it would be easier to become a gay's friend by supporting them. But the point is not to socialise. The point is to seek Him, and help others seek Him. True... becoming their friends makes things easier to help them to convert... but Paul did not have to support the King to preach to him. He was persecuted. So that just shows how sometimes, it is necessary to go against something, for the other person to understand. To put it in another way... by going against gay marriage, it might make gay people to be more conscient of what they are doing. They might understand better the point of view of Christians.. and then its their choice to accept it or not. But by becoming friends with them and supporting gay marriage... true, you are able to show them how you understand them, but it makes it harder for them to understand you. As someone else said... "to move the world, you must not be moved by it". Oh man.. now all this sounds pretty mixed up. I don't want to sound mean.. and if you wish to stick with your own opinion... that's fine. I just want to lay out the reasons why I believe in what I believe. True... I am mixing my faith with social issues, political even... but it's just what feels right. Jesus is my life... and He is in every aspect of it. If others don't understand that -non believers- that's fine with me. But that is my opinion, and I dont need anyone to approve it to be mine. I don't know... maybe it's easier for me to say all that because I am not American and the Constitution and the Government are not really that important to me when it comes to building upon my own opinion. But to say the truth... faith comes before the law created by man, so even if I was American... I would probably still have this same point of view. I think you explained your point really good... it made me think a lot... and honestly, I was almost agreeing with some parts of it. But it didn't feel right. So I had to take some time to really figure out why it didn't feel right... not by digging in the knowledge I have (sense it is so limited hehe)... but by exploring what He wanted to tell me... because after all, He also told me once that: "No seas sabio en tu propia opinion; Teme a Jehova" (Prov. 3:7). I know you might have your own counterclaims towards what I wrote. That's fine with me. I don't wish to force anyone to agree with me. I guess that in the end... I just needed to write all this down to make sense of all the mess that went on my head. I'm sorry if it seems that it all went on criticising your argument ARJ, but it's the one I still can't understand or accept. I can respect your choice though Peace.
|
|
|
Post by janadog on Aug 9, 2005 12:00:04 GMT -5
Has anyone thought about the correlation of this issue with tax collectors? It is truly one of the first songs we are taught in Sunday school. Zacchaeus? Then again, the flip side could be 1 Corinthinas 5: 9 Hmmm What are your thoughts? Souwa was right on target!! Marriage was created by God and not by man or government. Yet, governments do not recognize a marriage between man and wife unless there is an official document from them stating they are married. We have Christian marriage ceremonies and what does the pastor say: "By the power invested to me by God and the state of , I pronouce you man and wife. " Does that mean folks who have lived together for years in a completely monogamous relationship are living in sin? Did anyone stop to ask them if they were Christians? Maybe they just chose not to have the government acknowledge their marriage. Anyway, just a few thoughts that hopefully will make others think in a different direction. I see both sides of this argument and yet, I myself have not fully made my decision which side of the fence to sit on regarding gay marriage. I guess I wonder: What do they really want? What do they hope to accomplish by legalizing gay marriage? Tax breaks? These days it seems that it is cheaper to file as a single tax payer than not. When my mother remarried 5 years ago, both she and her husband paid for it at tax time. It would have been better for them not to have gotten married but only in a financial sense. What is truly the bottom line here?
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 9, 2005 19:07:04 GMT -5
As I stated in my first post...although I support gay marriage, it is a reluctant support. Part of my brain is screaming, "They're living in sin! Don't support that by saying that they be allowed to get married!" while another part of me is going, "Don't force your faith on others! The government should treat them equally!"
In the end, I have to side with the latter argument. I don't know, maybe it's just too easy for me to put myself in other people's shoes. I keep thinking: What if the roles were reversed? What if it was viewed as morally wrong to be heterosexual? What if, although heterosexuality was becoming more and more acceptable throughout the country, the government refused to recognize a heterosexual couple as married? What if the government, a body that is supposed to treat everyone equally, said that homosexuals would legally be recognized as married, while heterosexuals would not?
I don't think I'd like it very much. Which is why, although I am morally against homosexuality, I feel like I have to support the idea that the government treat them the same as everyone else.
Yes, marriage was created by God. However, the United States is not God. It is not supposed to support any one religious set of ideals over another's. It is not supposed to say, "Well I think that being homosexual is morally wrong", any more than it is supposed to say, "I think that being black or female is morally wrong."
When I think of "homosexuality", I think of two things: one, the idea that a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Two, the idea of people of the same sex practicing this attraction. The state of being, and the act itself.
So when I consider this topic, I have to take both of these things into account. And when I examine both elements, and how the government treats them, I come to the same conclusion: that, whether I like it or not, homosexuals have the right to be recognized as married.
Firstly, let's look at the state of being. You've got a man who is attracted to another man. Obviously, the question arises: is this by choice, or is it outside of his control? There is no answer to that yet. Some evidence indicates that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation, and are able to choose and become heterosexual after counseling. Other evidence suggests that it might be genetic - in other words, that they can't help the fact that they like members of the same sex any more than I can help being white.
Let's deal with the second option first: the idea that they can't help it. This means that sexual orientation is similar to the color of one's skin, their sex, etc. Now, the government (though it wasn't always this way) cannot discriminate against a person based on their gender or race. Which logically means that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.
Now, let's say that being homosexual is a choice. Should the government discriminate someone based on the fact that they chose to be homosexual? It's a tough question. However, I find myself forced to say no. I don't think the government should discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation any more than I would want the government to take away the rights of someone with a strange haircut. The government can't look at the issue of homosexuality and say it's morally wrong - that's not their job. To the government, whether or not something is moral is determined by two things:
1) whether or not a choice or action infringes on the rights of others 2) whether or not the choice or action is viewed as right or wrong by the majority of the population
That first aspect is the main criteria by which something is considered a "crime" or wrong. For example, murder infringes on the right of someone to live. Theft infringes on the rights of the person who is stolen from to have what they paid for. Rape infringes on the right of a person to not have sex unwillingly. These things also also typically seen by the vast majority of people as "wrong." Since the government serves the people, it has to uphold this idea as well.
Homosexuality is different. In terms of the first aspect, it is not infringing on anyone's rights any more than a heterosexual relationship infringes anyone's rights. As long as rape or another crime is not committed, homosexuality is legally the same as heterosexuality.
In terms of the second aspect - although homosexuality used to be considered morally wrong by most of the society, times are changing. Now there's a whole lot of people, and not just the homosexuals, saying that homosexuality is okay. So, to me at least, the logic is simple: you've got tons of people saying homosexuality is okay, and the numbers are rapidly rising. Plus, it's not infringing on anyone's rights, which is the main thing by which the government passes judgment. Therefore, according to government standards, homosexuals are not committing a crime by being homosexual, moral or otherwise.
Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of the choices they make. That includes homosexuals.
Now we move on to the second area of homosexuality: the practice of the act itself. This is where people become divided. Christians say, "No, having sex with a member of the same sex is morally wrong." Other groups say, "It's fine." Some even have interpreted the Bible as not condemning homosexuality.
The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to the morality of the issue, opinions are divided. I think homosexuality is a sin. However, others do not.
The government was not founded on what I believe. It was not founded on Christianity. It was founded on the idea of equality - the idea that we are all equal before the law. We all have the same opportunities. We all have the right not to be discriminated regardless of our states of being or our moral choices. In regards to moral choices, such as murder - the government has the right to say, "What you did is wrong, and you're going to jail." It does not have the right to say, "As a murderer, you are inferior to the rest of us." The first example is one of justice based on the law. The other is one of discrimination - the idea that one individual should be seen as inferior or treated with lesser rights or respect than others.
The Declaration of Independence did not begin with the words, "We the Christians." It began with the words, "We the People." People. As in, everyone. Not just me or you. Not just the heterosexuals. Everyone. That includes blacks, Caucasians, gays, lesbians, males, females, Asians, preachers, lawyers, Satanists, etc.
The government is supposed to be unbiased. It is supposed to offer everyone the same rights, regardless of their states of being and regardless of their moral choices.
The government is not God. Therefore, it has to look at things in ways that God would not. God says, "Homosexuality is a sin." The government says, "We hold no opinion on the issue." That is why I think homosexuals deserve the right to be recognized as married. In the eyes of God, they may be wrong. In terms of morals, you and I may think they're wrong. But in the eyes of the government, they are supposed to be treated the same as you and me. They are supposed to have the same rights as you and me. They have the right to say, "Give us a piece of paper saying that we're married," and being given such a piece of paper.
The government needs to wake up and realize that homosexuals are people too. They're as much a part of "We the People" as you and me. If God ruled the world (as He will some day), He wouldn't allow homosexuals to be married. In fact, he wouldn't allow homosexuality at all. But that is because God stands behind one definite set of ideals. The government, whether we like it or not, doesn't.
In my mind, the bottom line is this: if a homosexual couple wants the government (which is completely different from God, and should not support Christianity over other religions) to recognize them as married, then the government should recognize that right. Regardless of how their taxes are affected. Regardless of the fact that Christians are morally against homosexuality. Regardless of the fact that I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin, and would like it if the government condemned it as such.
That's just not the way the government functions. Or rather, the United States government.
|
|
|
Post by janadog on Aug 9, 2005 23:19:34 GMT -5
Amen!
|
|
souwa
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by souwa on Aug 10, 2005 4:19:26 GMT -5
Ok. I realise now why this topic is such a difficult one to get around... because it's really hard to stay away from discussing the morality of the issue.
I think I made a mistake at first by entering to that... the morality of it all.
In relation to having the right to marry or not.... ok, you are right. The problem comes when you are comparing them to other ethnic groups, or gender groups, etc, because by saying that, you are saying that it is practically out of their control, that it's not a choice of their own. That it is genetic. So you are saying that just as I was born Chinese, they were born gays. Now that has not been proven, and, as you said before, let's just stay away from that. Hehe...
I said something about leaving my pride away from this, and accept some good aspects about other people's arguments. I must say that, ok ... you win. I think I misunderstood a bit of what you were exactly discussing about. You are simply discussing about the right of getting married.
Honestly, I don't agree with gay people marrying, simply because I believe that homosexuality is a sin. But that's my own personal opinion. In regards to whether or not they should have the right to marry... being American people (because if we talk about this in relation to a Global scope, well, that's another issue... too many laws, Constitutions, etc, to take into account)... well, I guess they should have the right to, just as every American does.
Happy? (haha...)
Still, I have problems supporting this. So I must say that I don't support it nor encourage it. But I do agree with you when you say that they should have the right to get married. I think it is morally wrong -even if the whole world would think otherwise-, but when it comes to legal issues, .... it's very different from the moral aspect of it.
About how the Government determines what is right or wrong... you pointed out two criterias. The truth is that I don't really like them... haha, that what all the people say is right... it's right. As someone else said, a million people could be wrong, and just one person could be right, so the idea of the majority's choice is not always the best one. But then again, this is the only way the Government -perhaps- can determine things in a more "objective" and democratic way... more in favour of the people. The majority, I guess. Okay. I may not like it, but the world is not perfect, and some things may be accepted, but not supported, just like this... because it may not feel right, but it is almost the only way out for the American Government. (Sorry if my thoughts got too messy... but I can't help it)
To summarise: I think it's not moral (my personal opinion), but it should be legal.
|
|
souwa
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by souwa on Aug 10, 2005 4:33:21 GMT -5
Oops... I forgot to add some things that were running in my mind hehe: That's right¡ I am against gay people marrying, but in terms of the Government¡ I guess that they, as their job, should give them the right to get married. As their job. Not as what I believe¡ do you get me? Hehe¡ it¡¯s a bit confusing. But yeah¡ los gringos vea, el Gobierno y todo¡ demasiado vuelta le da a las cosas. Things would have been so much easier if they would have founded all their laws on Christian beliefs hihi... but then again, that's what I think hehe (call me biased, I don't care... aren't we all anyways?).. Now again.... all that just shows how the world isn't perfect in the hands of men, but it will be perfect when our Lord will reign¡ for eternity I can¡¯t wait...hihi.
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 10, 2005 13:09:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I know. I don't like it either.
When I think about it, I realize I need to legally support what I feel is morally wrong. Talk about an ego-smasher.
Let's go buy a small island and govern it with Christian ideals. ;D
|
|
greenmonkey
Junior Member
music is my life, but God is my Everything
Posts: 74
|
Post by greenmonkey on Aug 10, 2005 21:48:43 GMT -5
Ill be glad to go to that island, but I an't payin fo it!
|
|
|
Post by hibiscus on Aug 13, 2005 21:47:53 GMT -5
Okay, you guys write LONG posts! This one won't be so long. I think we're all agreed that Biblically, homosexuality is a sin. Candyman, your arguments on looking at the issue of marriage just from an "American" view seem solid at face value, but look a little deeper and consider the following: - the gov't (all governments, for that matter) is founded on a world view, a set of principals. In the case of the US, that's basically a Judeo-Christian ethic, or at least it was originally. - The government has always had laws that reflect the people's moral will. Slavery is illegal - you can't become an indentured servant even if you want to. You can't have more than 1 wife, even if your religion supports it. You can't have a monopoly because it's "unfair" - a definite moral judgment on the part of the lawmakers. Laws in other countries reflect their moral values and worldview - it's illegal for women to drive in Saudia Arabia, for example. - So, why can't the U.S. government give special status to married heterosexuals that is enjoyed by no other group? Particularly when that group (married heterosexuals) is one recognized by the moral value system of pretty much every religious group in that country?
You're right in your effort to be fair, to be non-judgmental in a legal sense. It would be wrong and should be illegal for people to be discriminated against or persecuted because of homosexuality. But entitled to marriage, not a legal "benefit" which the country is obligated to offer.
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 14, 2005 20:02:37 GMT -5
A few things:
- Yes, the government was originally founded with a Christian-Judeo worldview. However, not all the founding fathers were Christians, and they promoted the idea of equality for everyone. They were willing to put aside their religious beliefs to create a Constitution that would help unite a nation instead of divide it. That's what the US government is all about, in my opinion.
- Yes, as I mentioned in one of my posts, the government's policies reflect the people's moral will. However, these days more and more people are supporting homosexuality or at least that the government give homosexuals the right to marry, and I think the government should take that into account. Also, I don't think it's illegal to marry more than one woman - at least not in every state, especially with the Mormon church constantly growing (from what I've heard, they support polygamy). And, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but Microsoft is basically a monopoly.
- Please point out a particular group of people that has certain rights that other people can't have, regardless of whether or not they want them. I can't think of any off the top of my head except for married heterosexuals.
You made some good points, but I'm still inclined to disagree.
|
|
greenmonkey
Junior Member
music is my life, but God is my Everything
Posts: 74
|
Post by greenmonkey on Aug 14, 2005 20:32:00 GMT -5
gay junk is wrong.Thats all I gots to say.
|
|
|
Post by hibiscus on Aug 14, 2005 23:37:48 GMT -5
- affirmative action - Indian reservations (ex. - casinos on reservations)
I'm sure there's more, just can't think of any at the moment
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 15, 2005 0:46:02 GMT -5
Would you mind elaborating on those?
|
|
|
Post by hibiscus on Aug 15, 2005 17:28:59 GMT -5
No time to do a lot of research, but check this out from the Family Research Council (admittedly, they're a super conservative group, but I'm in agreement with them on this area ): Why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else? The fundamental "right to marry" is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual orientation." Many people who now identify themselves as homosexual have previously been in legal (opposite-sex) marriages. On the other hand, many people who previously had homosexual relationships have now renounced that behavior and married persons of the opposite sex. If we define a "homosexual" as anyone who has ever experienced homosexual attractions, then both of these scenarios represent "homosexual" individuals who have exercised their right to be legally married. However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws" (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual. Some people may wish to do away with one or more of these longstanding restrictions upon one's choice of marital partner. However, the fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have someone of the same sex as a partner does not mean that they have a "right" to do so, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans give them a "right" to choose a child, their own brother or sister, or a group of two or more as their marital partners. The full Q&A article is quite long - anyone interested can read it here - www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&f=PG03I03
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 15, 2005 18:52:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that the pro-gay marriage community isn't as small of a minority as that article makes it out to be. And it's constantly growing. If the government wants to pay attention to the will of the people, they'd at least better pay attention. While supporter of gay marriage might be a minority, I have a feeling their numbers will continue to rise and rise until they're nearly a majority. At which point, the government needs to amend those laws and allow same-sex marriage. I'd say the same thing if there was a large minority group of vocal supporters of incest - if enough people want it, eventually the government needs to pay attention and give them what they want, no matter how controversial the issue. EDIT: Here's an interesting link to a survey that was taken around a month ago. In response to some questions regarding gay marriage, 35%-40% of people support it. In response to other questions, the difference between supporters and opposers is even smaller. That's not a majority, but it's a whole lot of people, and I think the government needs to take that into account. www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
|
|
|
Post by hibiscus on Aug 15, 2005 22:22:43 GMT -5
Allow incest if the majority wanted it? Are you mad?
The role of government isn't to give people what the majority want. It's to provide what's best for all and what's best for the future. What we want is not necessarily what is best.
|
|
|
Post by The Candyman on Aug 15, 2005 22:39:20 GMT -5
The government's job is to do what the people think is best for them. If the majority of the population thinks it's beneficial to allow incest, the government should bow to those demands - and eventually will, since gradually the supporters of that minority will come to positions of power. It's been going on all throughout history...women's rights, civil rights, etc. A minority demands more rights, some people get upset, there's a lot of conflict, and then sometimes that minority gets those rights. Either because the majority of people eventually support them, or eventually they make friends in high places...or because their side wins a civil war.
With government, majority rules. When passing a bill, voting for President, etc. the majority is what matters. If the majority says they want something to happen, it happens, regardless of whether or not it's necessarily best for everyone in the long run.
Something tells me that will never happen with incest. But with same-sex marriage...it just might.
|
|
edu
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by edu on Aug 17, 2005 13:22:34 GMT -5
wow, it seems there are a lot of aspects covered in this discussion. unfortunately, i signed in a little late so i don't have a chance to look at them all. nevertheless, i've replied to andrew's discussion at his blogspot so i may as well share some of the same response an add a little more for other points that have appeared in this forum. ok, first of all, andrew, you make a mistake when you compare the condition of a homosexual to that of being a female or of a particular ethnical group. The most important difference that nullifies this analogy is that homosexuality is not genetically determined as are the other conditions; in other words, and you said it yourself, homosexuals have a choice to select their lifestyle, but women can't reverse their XX chromosomal configuration nor can blacks reverse their melanin pigmentation (except for michael jackson ). In this case I'm supporting a previous comment i read before from someone where that person said that homosexuals aren't born homosexuals, as opposed to women and members of all different ethnical groups. although, some scientists try to "find" a biological cause for homosexuality (ex. imbalance of sex hormones), there is actually no proven scientific evidence (barely any in fact) that homosexuality is biologically influenced. Nonetheless, psychological studies claim that if a person has been raped by a member of his own sex in his infancy, then such an experience could influence that person's sexual orientation even though this is not 100% of the case. However, as you can observe, this hypothesis does not relate to a biological cause rather a psychological one, so you're analogy is still deficient. Since homosexuality is not biologically determined, the government isn't pressured to legalize gay marriages in this fashion because homosexuals are not an ethnical group, rather, they are more like an "interest party". You are right when you say times are changing: we're experiencing moral decay. that's all i have time for right now. hope i get a chance later.
|
|