Happy Homosexual Couples Tonight

[darlene]

I have posted this in the Canadian Forum and will do it here too.

If you were a homosexual couple you would be celebrating in Canada tonight. Our parliament did it, they passed the same-sex legislation. Are we happy? We'll let you decide that......

"The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 for and 133 against.

Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex unions."

[Guest]

Gay Marriage?

Trying to say that Christians or the Bible are discriminatory against gays or gay marriages; is like trying to say doctors are biased or racist for telling us that sickle cell anemia is most often found in black people.

God is not in the habit of playing favorites with anyone: “…Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:” (Acts 10:34). God is just as hard on all classes of sin (Rom.6:23) - including heterosexual adulterers, and many others:

Quote:

---

“Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts. {oppress: or, defraud}.”

---

We now live in a post-Christian society. Are we, as an “enlightened society,” going to try and say God or Christians are “thief-ophobic” for being opposed to stealing? Why is God only unfair when He similarly tries to deal with homosexuality? Why are Christians “homophobic” because they believe homosexual behaviors or practices are wrong? Why aren’t gays heterophobic when they publicly denounce Christians for their beliefs? I have personally had gay friends or co-workers who had a lot more respect for me than that kind of characterization; and I even had one fellow who would ask me to read the Bible to him. And he knew everything I believed about gays. But, there was a healthy, mutual respect there which is not seen any more within the gay lobby that is in the courts trying to tear Christians to bits.

One report I have read, contained a statement by a Canadian lawyer – one Barbara Findlay; a Vancouver based, Lesbian activist Lawyer. Findlay made a prediction, back in 1997, that "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a show down between freedom of religion, versus sexual orientation.”

What anyone should be able to clearly see now, eight years later, by looking at their own, local news, and other sources of media; is the obvious fact that there is developing a very consistent pattern by the courts, and various Human Rights Commissions, whereby “equality” rights and religious rights which collide; are usually engineered, and coerced into favoritism for the so called “equality rights.” Recent court decisions prove this quite well, some of which I will touch on in the next post.

In the case of most discussions I have seen on this topic; it is equally clear that “homosexual rights” are being pitted against basic Christian rights and morals. And it won't end with the legalization of "gay marriages." And BTW; there is no such thing as "marriage;" if it is "gay."

We must ask: “How can the “logic” of equating homosexual with heterosexual marriages NOT at some point soon, (considering how courts and gay lobbies are progressing); require that Churches, Temples, Mosques, or whatever, must perform same-sex marriages, irrespective of their beliefs? How can this next step be avoided, after we use the courts to enforce and justify this equating of gay and heterosexual marriages as “equal”?

The quality of arguments being propelled in favor of same sex “marriages,” leaves us with more questions and problems than it will ever answer, under their current, publicly stated boundaries. The majority of gay activists not only insist that this is “a rights issue;” but they also insist that it is ONLY a rights issue. And, gay activists seem to be totally closed or indifferent to any other arguments or opinions – even by other majority segments of society that far out number them. Most gay activists seem to act as though no other opinions were ever made about what they are calling a “rights” issue.

But when we face reality here; marriage is not, and never was a “rights” issue. How can that ever be; except that gay rights activists would adamantly make the claim? (and usually without evidence).

By the very nature of marriage; it’s historical nature; and it’s “natural order;” marriage is not only limited by sex (gender); but, also by number (2 people) to exclude polygamy; by age (to exclude minors); and by blood relation (to exclude incest); and also a major, biological factor (part of “natural order”) where the reproduction of the human species does require a male and a female; which is partly what marriage was designed for by God. This latter point definitively clinches one of the “natural” laws of marriage.

In Canada, our media and politicians seem to be acting in concert to assume that the general public, the majority, has no idea what is good for them or best for them, when it comes to marriage. The stakes here are moral; the stakes are high; because Canadian public opinion generally tells us that Canadians are 2 to 1 against same sex marriages; and that they would be prepared to hold a referendum on the subject. With some deceptive political gymnastics and manipulations; the government is avoiding a referendum; forcing through the legislation against the clear will of the public majority; and generally ignoring Canadian public opinion. Tonight we see the results of their coercion of this gay marriage legislation upon the Canadian public; with no democratic process involving the general (Canadian) public.

Americans, and indeed, other countries around the world grossly deceive themselves if they try to deny that something similar is happening, or will soon happen where they live.

Quote:

---

“In the day of final judgment, every lost soul will understand the nature of his own rejection of truth. The cross will be presented, and its real bearing will be seen by every mind that has been blinded by transgression. Before the vision of Calvary with its mysterious Victim, sinners will stand condemned. Every lying excuse will be swept away. Human apostasy will appear in its heinous character. Men will see what their choice has been. Every question of truth and error in the long-standing controversy will then have been made plain.

In the judgment of the universe, God will stand clear of blame for the existence or continuance of evil. It will be demonstrated that the divine decrees are not accessory to sin. There was no defect in God's government, no cause for disaffection. When the thoughts of all hearts shall be revealed, both the loyal and the rebellious will unite in declaring, "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? . . . for Thy judgments are made manifest." Rev. 15:3, 4.” DA.058.001

---

[Dr. Shane]

[]http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Thumb...%20Gomorrah.jpg[/]

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eteranl fire. ~ Jude 7

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly. ~ 2 Peter 2:6

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

because Canadian public opinion generally tells us that Canadians are 2 to 1 against same sex marriages; and that they would be prepared to hold a referendum on the subject. With some deceptive political gymnastics and manipulations; the government is avoiding a referendum; forcing through the legislation against the clear will of the public majority; and generally ignoring Canadian public opinion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nope, sorry, try again. I'm not arguing on the merits of the case (I might decide to do that later), just on the facts. If we're to hold up a Christian standard, truth and honesty is also one worth holding up.

Most polls on the issue have it very close to half and half opposed and in favour, and in most cases the differences are within the experimental error of the poll. Here are some examples from last year (at an anti-same-sex-marriage site): http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll04.htm

I can understand your argument, but it's important to base it in truth.

[Guest]

Bravus;

I well understood before I posted the above that the figures for various polls varied; depending upon where one looks. But the polls are not the point here.

[Guest]

Here is a quote from a news article I read recently. It is only a very small example of what is going on; but it will prove my point, made above:

Quote:

---

Religious freedoms already have been set back in Canada in recent years. In 2002 an Ontario court ruled that a Toronto printer violated the human rights code when he refused to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. He was fined $5,000. In another case, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fined a man $4,500 for running a newspaper advertisement condemning homosexuality. The ad included biblical references.

Because of the fear of fines, Focus on the Family's radio programs occasionally must have references to homosexuality edited out before they are broadcast. Christian television also keeps an eye on its programming.

And it's getting worse. Last year, Canada's Parliament passed a bill placing "sexual orientation" in the criminal code classes protected against hate speech. The bill is now law.

"Clearly, the government and judiciary in Canada are poised to rule in favor of gay rights over rights to express religious convictions," Kermit Rainman, social research analyst for Focus on the Family, told BP. "From this point, it is a small step for the government to require churches to perform same-sex marriages against their belief systems. The situation here in the U.S. is not far behind what we are seeing in Canada and should cause every evangelical Christian and social conservative great concern."

---

This and many other examples are all public knowledge that one can verify; independent of any opinions expressed here on this forum, or anywhere else.

What I am trying to say here is that the problem has been stated in some circles that the churches are "attacking gay marriage." I am saying that the other side has gone way over any sensible limits on the issue. They have degenerated to the point where they are doing to Christians, and to society in general; exactly what they keep saying Christians should not do to them. And they are using the courts to do it; and this shows the true, heterophobic, and persecuting nature of the gay lobby. Churches, (and rightly so), are launching a counter-offensive to a no holds barred attack.

The gay lobby has won just a battle; but will they win the war?

[Nicodema]

None of your business what they do. They aren't harming anyone but -- according to your arguments -- themselves. That's what separates the definitions of "sin" and "crime" -- and it is only "crime" with which legislation ought be concerned.

None of your business. They aren't harming anyone. That is why it is different -- in terms of civil law -- from stealing or whatever.

Their beliefs conflict with your beliefs. So? They are not out to change you. They are not out to make you something you're not. They just want you to keep your religion and its politics out of their bedrooms. Their beliefs differ from yours. Would you go to court to stop a Muslim from practicing his beliefs, or a Hindu or Buddhist? Of course not. So why pick on homos?

I am a Christian. I am not a homosexual. I feel ashamed of my brothers when they drag out the same tired arguments (easily disproven by logic and truth) which essentially amount to, in their eyes, justifying interfering with something that is none of their business. You cannot, and will not, legislate away homosexuals. There will continue to be homosexuals in this world. They are not going away just because you wish them away or you bring political or social "muscle" against them in the court or the halls of legislature.

Get over it.

Start bringing the gospel of God's LOVE to these people. Let HIM be the one to make changes, if changes are what is needed. He's the only one who can do so.

Meanwhile, stay out of their bedrooms. T'ain't nobody's bizness but their own.

My :2cents:

[Nicodema]

Conveniently, the verses that tell the real sin of Sodom, "pride, and the fulness of bread, neither did she show hospitality to strangers," is omitted from this little ditty, sung only to presumably justify picking on homos.

This single-eyed prejudice is one of Christendom's greatest shames.

Thank God NOT all Christians are into picking on people-groups they cannot make disappear.

Funny how this ilk never picks on drunks and drug addicts, nor even the violent (since warmongering seems to be in their blood). Just homos.

Interesting.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

David T Battler said:

Here is a quote from a news article I read recently. It is only a very small example of what is going on; but it will prove my point, made above:

Quote:

---

Religious freedoms already have been set back in Canada in recent years. In 2002 an Ontario court ruled that a Toronto printer violated the human rights code when he refused to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. He was fined $5,000. In another case, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fined a man $4,500 for running a newspaper advertisement condemning homosexuality. The ad included biblical references.

Because of the fear of fines, Focus on the Family's radio programs occasionally must have references to homosexuality edited out before they are broadcast. Christian television also keeps an eye on its programming.

And it's getting worse. Last year, Canada's Parliament passed a bill placing "sexual orientation" in the criminal code classes protected against hate speech. The bill is now law.

"Clearly, the government and judiciary in Canada are poised to rule in favor of gay rights over rights to express religious convictions," Kermit Rainman, social research analyst for Focus on the Family, told BP. "From this point, it is a small step for the government to require churches to perform same-sex marriages against their belief systems. The situation here in the U.S. is not far behind what we are seeing in Canada and should cause every evangelical Christian and social conservative great concern."

---

---

[sarcasm] Oh horror of horrors, Christians might actually have to be held responsible for how they treat people different from themselves in their conduct and words!! Quick everyone, get out the fire extinguishers!!! [/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

What I am trying to say here is that the problem has been stated in some circles that the churches are "attacking gay marriage." I am saying that the other side has gone way over any sensible limits on the issue. They have degenerated to the point where they are doing to Christians, and to society in general; exactly what they keep saying Christians should not do to them. And they are using the courts to do it; and this shows the true, heterophobic, and persecuting nature of the gay lobby. Churches, (and rightly so), are launching a counter-offensive to a no holds barred attack.

---

Poppycock. We KNOW what you are trying to say: same old same old regurgitated kak from rabid right-wing pundits or preachers. Nothing more, and nothing truly CHRISTIAN.

"And they'll know we are Christian by our love, by our love, yes they'll know that we are Christian by our love." -- NOT by our politics and NOT by our capacity to use them to pick on others.

Quote:

---

The gay lobby has won just a battle; but will they win the war?

---

Frankly? I hope they do. But like the "war on terror", it will likely NEVER end. All that will happen if they "win the war" is that bigots will continue to harp and whine until the law changes back to suit them.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

None of your business what they do. They aren't harming anyone but -- according to your arguments -- themselves. That's what separates the definitions of "sin" and "crime" -- and it is only "crime" with which legislation ought be concerned.

---

I strongly agree.

There is a clear distinction between legal marriage

- a social contract around assets, legal protections, social welfare etc. and which apply to everyone without their consent

and religious marriage.

- Rules that you or your denomination voluntarily consent to

The Bible clearly teaches THOU SHALT NOT STEAL and yet Christian's like Mr Butler are in favor of using a police force to take dollars away from Gay's to fund a court system which provide a legal framework for his partnership with his wife, but not one between two women or two men.

This is irrational - but as I said elsewhere, you don't have to be irrational to belong to an organized christian denomination, but it certainly helps.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "We must ask: “How can the “logic” of equating homosexual with heterosexual marriages NOT at some point soon, (considering how courts and gay lobbies are progressing); require that Churches, Temples, Mosques, or whatever, must perform same-sex marriages, irrespective of their beliefs? How can this next step be avoided, after we use the courts to enforce and justify this equating of gay and heterosexual marriages as “equal”?"

This is absolute nonsense.

The State does not now require that clergy (Churches/Temples/ etc. do not marry people, clergy do.) perform any marriages. No clergy person, while acting as a clergyperson is required to perform any heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is a State function, and is certified by employees of the State. Under the law in some areas, clergy, and others, are allowed to perform marriages, but are never required to do so.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "But when we face reality here; marriage is not, and never was a “rights” issue. How can that ever be; except that gay rights activists would adamantly make the claim? (and usually without evidence)."

Marriage is only a religious issues in a religious context. For people who are not living is a religious context, marriage is a function of the State, and a civil issue. In the society in which many of us live, the State forms if rules of bahavior outside of religious considerations. That is to say that it forms it rules of behavior from the civil constructs, and not from religion.

Anyone who claims that homosexual marriage is not and never was a "rights" issues has no unerstanding of the issues involved.

In the society in which most of us live, the right to recieve property upon one's death is often determined in part by the existance of a marraige contract. The right to make end-of-life decisions often are impacted by a marriage contract. Issues of taxation are affected. None of these have an overt religious aspect. All have a major civil aspect, and relate to basic civil rights.

One might advocate civil rights for homosexual people, without advocating marriage. This is one issue that needs further discussion. But, there are those who say that in the legal society of the USA, civil rights can only come from a civil marriage for homosexuals.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Trying to say that Christians or the Bible are discriminatory against gays or gay marriages; is like trying to say doctors are biased or racist for telling us that sickle cell anemia is most often found in black people."

Not at all.

A valid case for discrimination may be made when one advocates a position that reduces the civil rights of a group of people based upon a position that gives those rights to another group of people soley upon adherence to a set of religious beliefs.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Religious freedoms already have been set back in Canada in recent years. In 2002 an Ontario court ruled that a Toronto printer violated the human rights code when he refused to print stationery for a homosexual activist group. He was fined $5,000. In another case, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fined a man $4,500 for running a newspaper advertisement condemning homosexuality. The ad included biblical references."

I do not know the specifics of the cases referenced, and therefore cannot comment on them, and I do not.

But, I will make some general observations:

One obains a business license based upon an agreement to provide a product of service to the general public. A seller of shoes is not legally allowed to refused to sell shoes to people who are commonly called Negeros. By the same thinking, one should not be allowed to refuse to sell shoes to homosexuals. Homosexuals should have a civil right to shop for services and products on the same basis as everyone else. No, they should not be given a special right to purchase shoes at a lower price than others. B ut, they should be able to purchase them on the same basis as others.

Homosexuality is a condition. One may be a celebate homosexual. It was stated above that the advertisement condemed homosexuality, which is a condition. Folks, condemnation of people, which is essentiallly what condemnation of homosexuality as a condition is, is wrong. In the USA the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that there are limits on the right of free speech. I will suggest that in the USA one does not have the right to either advocate that people kill others, or to cry "fire" in a concert hall, when there is none.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

None of your business what they do. They aren't harming anyone but -- according to your arguments -- themselves. That's what separates the definitions of "sin" and "crime" -- and it is only "crime" with which legislation ought be concerned.

---

[:"blue"]That they are not harming anyone, I respectfully disagree. It is God who has labeled homosexuality as sin, not Christians. And since when is sin ever harmless? One little lump of leaven affects the whole dough. We live as it were, in a big bowl of jello. What happens in our little corner jiggles the whole bowl to a lesser or greater degree. Sin not only harms the one who commits it, but also harms others directly or indirectly. The cost of treating AIDS is enormous. And who bears this cost? No one HIV sufferer can ever meet the cost of treatment. So, who bears the cost? And how about the suffering they inflict, willfully or not, on their families that love them? [/]

Quote:

---

None of your business. They aren't harming anyone. That is why it is different -- in terms of civil law -- from stealing or whatever.

---

[:"blue"]You are right, Nico. What people do in their bedrooms is no one else's business. But what gov'ts legislate IS everyone's business. Should gov'ts be in the business of putting their stamp of approval on perversion? Should they also put their stamp of approval on transvestism? Prostitution? Brother/sister marriages? Man/animal unions? [/]

Quote:

---

Their beliefs conflict with your beliefs. So? They are not out to change you.

---

[:"blue"]If you don't think the homosexual agenda is not to change people's attitudes about homosexuality, you are sadly mistaken. It is in fact their whole agenda to make people accept what is perversion as something perfectly normal. [/]

Quote:

---

They are not out to make you something you're not. They just want you to keep your religion and its politics out of their bedrooms. Their beliefs differ from yours. Would you go to court to stop a Muslim from practicing his beliefs, or a Hindu or Buddhist? Of course not. So why pick on homos?

---

[:"blue"]Christians have been commissioned by Christ himself to teach everything He taught. And one of the things the Bible teaches, both Old & New Testaments, is that homosexuality is a perversion, a sin. Now, no one can keep others from sinning, that is their choice. But should Christians & their gov'ts allow killing because people choose to kill anyway? Allow the free use of drugs because many people find pleasure in them?

Freedom of speech applies to all, and so are the limits to freedom of speech applicable to all. Let homos be free to propagate their beliefs, but let Christians do the same. Ditto Muslims, Buddhists, or whoever. But should the gov't allow the mullahs to preach hate & destruction of the US gov't? When do we put limits on the freedom to speak? [/]

Quote:

---

I am a Christian. I am

not

a homosexual. I feel ashamed of my brothers when they drag out the same tired arguments (easily disproven by logic and truth) which essentially amount to, in their eyes, justifying interfering with something that is none of their business. You cannot, and will not, legislate away homosexuals. There will continue to be homosexuals in this world. They are not going away just because you wish them away or you bring political or social "muscle" against them in the court or the halls of legislature.

---

[:"blue"]

We have been taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. Unfortunately many can't tell the difference. It is unfortunate that too many Christians find homosexuality very odious but seem strangely silent to corporate greed & CEO misconducts.

Yes, Nico, you are very correct in saying we will never be able to legislate homosexuals & homosexuality away. But just because we cannot legislate crime or sin away, does that mean we should turn a blind eye towards them? The best that Christians can hope for in this world where Satan is king, is to restrain evil.[/]

Quote:

---

Get over it.

Start bringing the gospel of God's LOVE to these people. Let HIM be the one to make changes, if changes are what is needed. He's the only one who can do so.

Meanwhile, stay out of their bedrooms. T'ain't nobody's bizness but their own.

My :2cents:

---

[:"blue"]Yep, what they do in their bedrooms is no one else's bidness. But what people do in public becomes everyone else's bidness. Love perverts? Of course! Accept perversion? Never!

My one penny. [/]

Gerry

[Jeannieb43]

There are homosexuals, and then there are homosexuals. Just as there are heterosexuals who flaunt their sexuality and those who don't. I don't believe it's fair to paint every member of a class with the same broad brush.

And I can't believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself automatically constitutes sin. Because if a person has no power to change that part of himself, how can it be called sin?

[Bravus]

My friend Lorne is an agnostic who is married to an Adventist, and he sometimes comes to our church and is a good friend: we often go to each other's houses. He was strongly opposed to the same-sex marriage law in Canada, whereas I wasn't, and we played around with why the agnostic felt strongly about it while the Christian really didn't. Lorne gave me permission to link a post on his blog, with some replies, that addressed the issue: this was after I suggested to him that he spend a little time checking out what the Bible *really* says. To his enormous credit, he did so.

http://sirdar.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-does-bible-say-about-same-sex.html

If you comment with replies in his blog, which I'm sure he won't mind, *please* keep in mind that he's a good friend of mine and an open-minded agnostic, and be polite.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "And one of the things the Bible teaches, both Old & New Testaments, is that homosexuality is a perversion, a sin."

A couple of points:

1) I will suggest that the Bible teaches that the PRACTICE of homosexuality is sin. Homosexuality is a condition, that is a result of sin. But, I do NOT believe that God charges any homosexul with sin simply because of thier condition. It think it is important to distinguish between the two.

2) Let me repeat again, in an effort to keep from being misunderstood, the Bible teaches that the parctice of homosexuality is sin. But, that does not mean that every Biblical verse that Christians have used to condem homosexual practice is actually a condemnation of homosexual practice. I think that some verses have been misused. But, I still think that the verses that remain identify homosexual practice as sin.

3) One may acknowledge that homosexual practice is sin, as I do. But, there still remain practical issues of life that are not easy to resolve, and upon which Christians may disagree. The issue of civil rights for and/or civil marriage are such, among many others.

[darlene]

Actually, I am sorry that I started this thread here. It has some rude comments. Yes, I realize this topic brings up some very strong feelings and opinions, however, just because someone disagrees with your point of view that does not give you the right to be rude. There is a way to respectfully disagree and our comments should reflect that. Some of you have been most courteous and I really appreciate that. Others have not been and that is most disappointing. In future, please keep this in mind.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Jeannieb43 said:

There are homosexuals, and then there are homosexuals. Just as there are heterosexuals who flaunt their sexuality and those who don't. I don't believe it's fair to paint every member of a class with the same broad brush.

And I can't believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself automatically constitutes sin. Because if a person has no power to change that part of himself, how can it be called sin?

---

[:"blue"]Neither do we have power to change ourselves, but we are called sinners nonetheless. One can be a non-practicing homosexual, just as I can be a non-practicing adulterer, so yes, you are right, that a homosexual orientation does not necessarily constitute sin, unless one practices it. [/]

Gerry

[Gregory Matthews]

If one practices it, it is that practice that is sin. The orientation reamans a condition, and not a sin.

[Dr. Shane]

Homosexual behavior, like any sin, is not self-contained. It harms others and it is one of the reasons Christ died. How can anyone possibly claim that any sin doesn't harm others when it cost the dear Son of God His life?

Those that want to justify sin ought to come down from their intellectual high horse and admit God is right. "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy lions like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou Me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding..." "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it... Wilt thou disannul My judgment? wilt thou condemn Me, that thou mayest be righteous?" (Job38:2-4; 40:2, 8)

In case you missed it: "Even Sodom and Gomorrha... giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..." Jude 7

[Bravus]

Shane: if I recall correctly there are about 4-5 texts in total in the Bible about the *reasons* for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. Of those, one or two mention sexual immorality, and the rest all mention issues of social justice and poverty. Why do we choose to emphasise the minority, I wonder?

Oh, and how are everyone's slaves coming along? Are they working well for you? Have you had to flog them much lately? There are at least as many texts in the Old and New Testament about slaves, keeping them and the conditions under which they should be kept as there are about homosexuality...

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, I do not know if your post was directed at me, or simply taggin on to the end. But, if you carefully read my posts, you will note that I did not make the statements that your respond to.

[there buster]

I'm always astonished when someone puts this in terms of "civil rights."

A homosexual has precisely the same right to marry as I do. Nothing on the marriage license asks about so-called "sexual orientation."

Any mentally competent, unmarried male who is of age may marry any mentally competent, unmarried femal who is of age, and is willing to marry him. And vice versa.

No one is denied the right to marry because of sexual orientation.

If males want to marry males, and females want to marry females, then we will have to change the definition of marriage. What is being sought is a re-definition of marriage.

The argument that I can marry whomever I want because I'm hetero is obviously false. Since I'm already married, I cannot marry "whomever I want." That would require a change of definition in marriage, to include more than two people.

Even if I were single, I couldn't marry any of the already married women in my country, any underage girl, or any woman who didn't want me. Any of those options would require a change in the definition of marriage.

Nor could I marry another man, because that would require a change in the definition of marriage.

So, let's be done with the "civil rights" argument vis-a-vis marriage. Whatever validity it might have in other situations, it simply doesn't have any in this issue. No official can say, "You can't marry Henry because you're a homosexual." They can only say "Marriage requires one man and one woman." There's absolutely nothing barring "Gay Henry" from marrying "Lesbian Henrietta," so long as they're both of age, williing, and unmarried. As that demonstrates, there is no discrimination based on "sexual orientation."

Every one in the U.S. has the same right to marry, without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, or "sexual orientation."

What the gay community wants is a change in the definition of marriage. Why don't they admit this?

Because it opens the door to polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia, things which they do not want to be associated with.

Why not have multiple wives? That's the same sort of "civil rights " issue for fundamentalist Mormons, or Muslims.

Why not let older men marry little girls? Why isn't that a "civil rights" issue for children?

Once we get into the business of re-defining marriage, where do we stop? And why?

Calling it "civil rights" is an attempt to baptize the issue, and invoke the memories of Martin Luther King, Jr., on the one hand, and Bull Connor (or maybe Robert Byrd) on the other. But it's simple deception.

The real secular argument is about whether to re-define marriage, and why?

Does marriage as it exists serve a strictly "civil" purpose? If so, how will that purpose be affected if the definition of marriage is changed?

What makes one change positive or necessary, and another not?

On the Biblical side, the question of marriage was settled a long time ago. And so was the verdict on attempting to change that definition of marriage. We know what must be rendered to God. The question is, what about Caesar?