1st Amendment and Gay Marriage

[there buster]

if we're going to be serious about separating church and state, then we have to get the state out of all sorts of social welfare issues.

Leaving that issue to one side, however, the state has plenty of reasons to support and regulate marriage. Marriage is not just a religious institution, but is also a social institution, which affects the health of the state. Therefore, the state has a clear and compelling interest in defining, supporting and regulating marriage.

Those who study the family recognize the data is overwhelming that children need a father and a mother. Children raised without were apparently other are much more likely to be a burden on the state. In fact, studies of prison inmates indicate that, controlling for all other factors is the single bullet best indicator of becoming a criminal. No other factor, not race, not socioeconomic status, nothing is predictive as being without a father.

I really hope no one will raise the specious point that not everyone without father goes to jail. Of coarse not. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't the major cause of lung cancer. So let's just not start the fallacious arguments.

Families to undertake to bear and raise children thereby provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, and make survival of the state possible.in so doing, they undertake burdens both economic and otherwise, for which they will never be adequately compensated. Since the state benefits from stable families, and therefore is in the state's interest to promote stable families, and even to subsidize them with tax breaks etc.

As I said in an earlier post, a single man and a single woman have the potential to produce children without the intervention of anyone else. That same grouping provides the optimum environment for raising children. So the state has a compelling interest in encouraging, subsidizing, defining, and regulating monogamous heterosexual marriage.

"Homosexual marriage" is therefore an oxymoron.if the state determines that some sort of civil partnership for other groupings of individuals is beneficial to the state, then it might choose to create such institutions. If the state determines that such civil partnerships lead to damage the state, then they should be prohibited.

As for the other matter, I am amused that those who are horrified that the church should influence the state. In any way, but are perfectly happy with the state to assume all sorts of functions --- caring for the poor, etc., which are in fact urged by the church.

[Parade Orange]

Well wouldnt promoting straight marriage as a serious cemented till death do u part kinda thing uphold marriage?.. where divorce is not frivolously given. Marriages are so easy to obtain on a whim. Most straight people I know who have been married more than once ,by example, do not take their sacred solomn covenants so seriously. R they screaming the loudest over gay marriages?

Men desiring woman and visa versa will always be here and wont diminish. dont panic. The striaght marriage is not threatened and if is(and it is) its because of what the straights have done to their marriage in the church and without.

the kids without fathers is mostly a staight thang and most of the other ills that comes from that.

woman having sex with men without marriage ect.

and affirmative about what the church regarding the poor ect.

The church has failed all their missions given by God.

The church was supposed to be there for the masses dying of AIDES to offer God's Love and forgiveness and not shunned and told 'told ya sooooooo!".It did the opposite.

Now the church has another mission and from the news it looks like its failing AGAIN!

[Parade Orange]

THe State and the church is both involved in the wedding. I agree. Some dont CHURCH it. But we all STATE it.

So the bottom line is whats in it for the state?

I suppose you can look at it that way.

But when I see a couple getting married its the last thing on their mind.

Maybe many christians here think like that as they walk down the aisle. I dont know.

But I was thinking more about cival liberties and equal rights and all that.

[there buster]

actually, the typical wedding ceremony emphasizes the issue of family and fertility. The older generation is usually ushered in the special seating, and the younger generation is included as flower girls and ring bearers and candle lighters. The marriageable generation is represented in the couple, the groomsmen, and the bridesmaids. So the family as the transmitter of civilization, a continuation of the race is definitely present. And of course, the custom of throwing rice was a promoter of fertility in the union.

As far as civil rights, and civil liberties go, I addressed that already. a homosexual person has precisely the same right to marry as anyone else. Nothing on the marriage license either requests information about sexual orientation or indicates that homosexuals are ineligible. What is desired is a redefinition of marriage, so that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman.

But if you're going to redefine marriage, why stop there? Why not say any people who want to marry any others can do so in any combination? As indicated in an earlier post, one man and one woman are the basic unit of reproduction for the human race. Nothing will change that. And traditional definitions of marriage recognize that simple physiological fact.

[Parade Orange]

well they are people who dont want to stop there but I wont take up their cases. Its not my bag daddio.

[Parade Orange]

I am not advocating gay marriage.

[Parade Orange]

when I see christians fuming and seething and fearing and justifying their opposition to gays joining their lovers in matrimony. even gays to think about the priveledge of actually joining society as equals and join the person who means the most to them gets christians rattled.

These christians as a whole as a church as a Club as a group do not uphold marriage as a sacred covenant. They dont have their head on straight.

They dont have a right to deny my right. How presumptuous. How foul. they think they are following the Bible? Barking at something other than yourselves? not looking inward and Christward?

It is so ugly to see. Thats not their job. They are kidding themselves. Goodness gracious. A group of people wanting to live their lives to join in matrimony. And they can bring in the older generations and flowergirls(like you've never seen!!!).

and yes it can be redefined.

why cant it?

The straight marriages(for those lovable aged moppets) it wont take anything away from the way it was always done. It will add.

[Parade Orange]

Ichabod, I know you dont know me and I dont know you. Apparently we disagree(even though I do agree) sooooo....

We are on two different pages. I see fear and loathing in their opposition to gays rights and you see something else.

The church plays out like it always played out. I am not blindsided by it.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I don't recall Christian believers in New Testament times lobbying Caesar's government

I don't recall Christians voting Caesar into office either. Obviously those living in a democratic republic are going to have different responsibilities than those living under dictatorships.

[Parade Orange]

The main reason why we didnt see the christians lobbying the Roman government is because that wasnt Jesus commision for the christians to get into.

We are to spread the gospel

not spend so much time, money, abilities, gifts and talents

to oppose,

march against,

enact laws,

disenfranchise,

deny basic human dignity and

alienate

people we disagree with who need JESUS.

creepy

creepy

creepy

[Gerr]

The early Christians were living at a time when they had NO say on the enactment of laws. We do. As Christians, how shall we vote on unjust or immoral issues?

Gerry

[there buster]

Quote:

they don't have a right to deny me my right

What right are you denied?

As far as "fear and loathing" goes, probably some feel that, and other don't.

As for myself, I'm tired of being labeled 'homophobic.' I'm not in the least afraid (phobic) of homosexuals. I do not see any indication in the Bible that homosexual sex is a worse sin than any other sexual sin. Not only that, but it is my understanding that the worst sins are spiritual: pride, envy, etc.

I do not know if desiring sex with someone of the same sex is sinful--any more than desiring sex with a woman other than my wife is a sin for me. Temptation is not sin, but if I indulge in such fantasies, that's another matter.

I do not know to what degree choice is involved in homosexuality. I've heard the arguments both ways, and I simply don't have enough knowledge or evidence to come to a conclusion.

For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant that it is inborn. But since the person's desires do not match the body God gave them, I would have to regard such an inborn condition as a sort of 'birth defect.'

Anyone with a birth defect deserves my compassion, not my condemnation. My daughter,for example, works with adults with mental retardation. Many of these have Down's syndrome. We feel compassion for them.

The depredations of sin have caused many types of birth defects. In one way, we all suffer from one or another, as none of us grow to Adam's stature, nor do we live for centuries any more. So we all need to relate to one another as fellow sufferers in this broken world.

In the past, and sometimes still, those with Down's syndrome are stigmatized. The same is true of homosexuals. It is a pity in both cases, and it is wrong. But the opposite fallacy is to declare these individuals to be 'totally normal.' That would be an equal injustice. It would deny reality, and deny those in need of the opportunity to receive the care and/or assistance they need.

[there buster]

Quote:

A group of people wanting to live their lives to join in matrimony.

Well, sort of.

Quote:

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/15m...p;ex=1213934400

Quote:

And they can bring in the older generations and flowergirls(like you've never seen!!!).

Of course, that's not the point. The point is that they cannot contribute brides and grooms or flower girls and bible boys for the next generation of weddings. The whole point about the inclusion of multiple generations is to demonstrate how marriage has always been about continuing the human race.

[Parade Orange]

well I guess I wont get into wifeswapping swinging parties and open marriages and men impregenating more than one lady at platos retreat and vietnam and korea. thats been around since i was aahh iddy biddy bubby and before.

If u are going to the web to prove if married gay men fool around u will find it. Welcome to the world. I have no illusion that gays will be better than their straight counterparts.

The gays who are or not married will not be having children(there is always exceptions) anyways.And many gay men do have children - I have a son.

They will always be men and women who marry and carry the civilazation on.

And about that thang about it being inborn or choice. So what if they chose it. Its their choice.

They still should be able to have equal cival rights as americans.

And I didnt think u were homophobic. I dont know you.

and about being 'normal' - its over rated.

and it is normal. sin is normal for sinners.

[Parade Orange]

Gerry u would vote your conscience instead as many americans- their pocketbooks.

[there buster]

Quote:

If u are going to the web to prove if married gay men fool around u will find it.

. That's an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. I didn't go to the web to prove that married gay men fool around. I merely went to a New York Times article on gay marriage, and there I found that gay men who are supposedly married define marriage to include the occasional threesome.

that's pertinent, because we continually hear that gay marriage will strengthen marriage. But here we see quite the opposite: that those engaged in so-called gay marriage, not content with redefining it as including a man and a man or a woman and woman, now go ahead and defined it as including three persons or more.

Raising the issue of those heterosexuals who are unfaithful to their marital vows actually disproves your case, rather than proving it. Because people who engage in such practices recognize that it is a violation of marriage. No one has suggested that heterosexual marriage should include "the occasional casual three-way."

In addition, it is continually asserted that recognizing gay marriage is not a "slippery slope." But this New York Times article demonstrates that the slippage has already started in gay marriages.

As to your other arguments, that make no sense. Of course there will be those who will continue to marry, and carry on the race. The question is not whether some will, but whether enough will marry, stay together, and raise stable children so that civilization can be maintained. It's easy to make and procreate, letting the progeny grow up uncivilized like weeds and prey on civilization. Staying together, making a family, and raising responsible productive citizens is a difficult task, and society has a compelling interest to promote that.and that's why the state has secular reasons to support marriage. Anything that detracts from that goal should be discouraged.

why is choice important? Well, actually, it's been homosexuals, who made the issue of choice so important. Because if it's a choice, then it's not a civil rights issue, by any stretch of the imagination. Choices have consequences, to make the choice is to choose the consequences. So homosexuality is a choice, homosexuals cannot complain about the consequences. It has been the argument of homosexual community that it is not about choice, but that homosexuality is inborn. Again and again I have read disclaimers saying things like "who would choose such a situation?" As though that settled the issue. So I'm simply answering the chosen defense homosexual community.

finally, concerning your "sin is normal" comment. One of the continual arguments of the homosexual community concerning Romans chapter 1, is that or I homosexual, desiring someone of the same sex is "natural" for them, and therefore Romans one doesn't apply. I happen to agree with your comment. But that invalidates the "homosexual desire is natural" argument.

[Parade Orange]

I am not defending gay marriage I have stated that in a lone post earlier in the dialogue.

Of course I see all the holes and I know many and have known many many gay people. Some celibate some randy and others in a relationship. I see all the foibles.I see the exact things in my little country SDA church.

And I thanku for taking the things I say and answering them. I want to hear what christians have to say about this. Thats Why I started this.

I dont want to hear the usual rhetoric or scriptures or fear tactics. I have heard them all.

and know full well what progay theology says about Romans and all that.

I didnt dodge the issue of gay men having sex with other men or woman. what am I supposed to say that? I affirm how marriage is not taken seriously by both straight or gay. Christian or non christian.

I am not under the illusion that all married homos will not stray.

The society will pay a price for passing gay marriages. YES INDEED!!

We have already paid a heavy price for fornication (not permitted by GOD) ,adultry (Commanded a HUGE NO-NO by GOD in the HOLY Decalogue) ,divorce (given cause of the hardness of the hetersexual hearts) in our churches. All three EVILS in my own family also. My mom fornicated at a drive in movie(most likely) with a boy. then She married another man and passed him off as my father in a pretended Secret Marriage . Then my mom divorced him less than two years later. I didnt find out till 15 years later. The christians in herlife just blush,gossipped and maybe a little flustered but not seething and wrathful and vengeful as they are with Homosexual sins.

And Ichabod I think you totally missed my point in all this and if it is heard there is a nod maybe and thats about it.

My point exactly!

[Parade Orange]

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their CreatorJESUS with certain unalienable Rights( Absolute).'

and what rights do we as americans have?

What freedoms does this fair country give its citizens? That GOD gave already that America is slowly figuering out.

[there buster]

Apparently I have missed your point. What is it? In one simple declarative sentence.

I cannot speak for others and how the deal with marriage. I can only tell you that my wife and I--Lord willing-- will celebrate our 40th anniversary this coming December. And to quote the late Ruth Graham, when asked if she and husband Billy had considered divorce, she said,"Divorce, never. Murder, often."

[Parade Orange]

One point is whether we agree or gisagree all americans have the right to marry whom they want(one partner hopefully).

and Second which is lost on most as well is most chritians got it wrong regarding what they call minisering to others.

Cause they are offended and think of homos as inferior.

they dont see it

[there buster]

Actually, I have answered both points.

Nobody"has the right to marry anyone they want." I do not, you do not. We both have precisely the same right to marry. I am not currently eligible for marriage, because I am already married. So although I might want to marry someone else, are not eligible to do so. Even if I were single, I would not be able to marry "Anybody I want." I could not marry a woman who was already married, nor an unmarried woman under a certain age, nor an unmarried woman of the appropriate age who did not want to marry me.

No matter how much I might claim to love someone else, even if it was true in some absolute sense, that still would not give me the right to marry.

Any eligible male may marry any eligible female, provided both are willing. I have that right. You have that right.

as far as your second point goes, I'm not certain what you mean by "ministering to others." We are all sinners. Jesus seemed to think that spiritual sins such as pride and envy were the worst. Makes sense to me, if for no other reason than that it's almost impossible to minister effectively to the proud and the envious.

[Parade Orange]

pride and envy are tolerated and even embraced by churches.

actions ,day after day and generation after generation, speak louder than words.

its interesting that me sharing my story and facts regarding the HATRED of many christians toward homos gets a passing nod. Like its no big deal.

cause its not a big deal. Its ok! Its acceptable! status quo.

Be a man dont be a pantywaist! Playfootbal. Ruff up that guy! Make it hurt! Injure! Maim! lets go to war! Kill! just dont kiss him.

BTW congratulations on the 40th!

I laugh at the Grahams quote. I fully understand!

I adore that woman.

Much of the people here dont usually comment on my comments So I actually was startled when someone actually engaged me more than a token post.

Thanku for your thoughtful responses. Even though we still disagree.

[Parade Orange]

Shouldnt the church be horrified more on how they treat segments in our society than they are by homosexulas drawing a breath?

Regarding all the sexual sins that mankind commits over and over again... The societies ills that comes from Divorce,Fornication, and Adultry-

growing up without both parents,

sexual diseases,

out of wedlock births,

jail,

drug abuse,

depression,

prostitution,

etc.

Doesnt make the church get up on its hind legs like homosexualty

why??????????????????????????????????????????????

[Gerr]

One point is whether we agree or gisagree all americans have the right to marry whom they want(one partner hopefully).

and Second which is lost on most as well is most chritians got it wrong regarding what they call minisering to others.

Cause they are offended and think of homos as inferior.

Why do you keep repeating this erroneous over-generalization? Maybe I am naive, but most Christians that I know of who are against same sex marriage do so because the God of the Bible calls it an abomination!!!

You may claim to be NOT pro-gay, but the tone of your arguments sound to me like you are arguing from both sides of the issue.

Gerry

[Parade Orange]

Christians are against it cause its an abomination? There is so much more going on in their own hearts about than that -they use the Bible to back it up YES!

.............- I have a list a mile long on what God calls an abomination and the christians choose this ONE thing as the abomination to get their panties in a bundle about?

sure its call an abomination!

amen it is!

I will share a few other abominations so our church can march in the streets and political campaigns/rallys and bullying phone calls and have rightouse indignation about, and fear, and seethe about the other abominations. since u think thats the Number ONE reason!

A proud look

a lying tongue

hands that shed innocent blood

a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations

feet that runneth to do mischief

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I just mentioned 7 things God hates- 7 abominations.

I will leave out a hundred others like cursing parents, false scales, and idol worship.

The proof is in the plum pudding.

I am repeating with over the top generalizations cause so many are clueless. no one speaks of the things I am sharing. Nothing. It all proves my point. It is wicked what they are doing. And u say.

yea but yea but yea but...[screaching] Its an abomination.

the church dont get it.

ohh well....welcome to the Body of Christ without the head or heart.

Does anyone here understand what I am driving at.

oh about both sides of the issue...

I am gay and a christian- hence both sides I see.