ARTICLE: Equal Rights for Homosexuals?

[STR Ambassador]

Here's a commentary by Greg Koukl that pertains to the current events regarding same-sex marriage.


November 1, 1997

Equal Rights for Homosexuals by Greg Koukl

The President addressed a group of homosexuals at a dinner in Washington over the weekend, spawning a conservative backlash. The White House responded by pointing out that the President also spoke at the Italian-American Foundation dinner, so this was not to be viewed as anything special.
Now, I have some difficulties here, ladies and gentlemen, but not at all with the President addressing this group. I think the President is president of every citizen in this country, and if he chooses to address a homosexual group, he is welcome to do so. What I'm bothered by is a couple of distortions I think came out of this.
There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. Be alert to this whenever you're entertaining discussion or debate, or reading about such debate on the issue of homosexuality in America—or whenever the Ellen issue comes up.
First of all, there's a difference between skin color—ethnicity—and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.
When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
So this is not the same situation as President Truman's endorsement of equal rights for African Americans that the President cited in his address. This is not the same as the Italian American foundation dinner. We're not talking about morally benign qualities that are innate to one's birth.
With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way. But even if it were, we're talking about a particular behavior that most American's consider strange and unnatural, and many Americans consider deeply immoral.
Let me make a point here, friends. These attitudes are not the result of blind prejudice, as is often represented. Most Americans don't think this is unnatural because they haven't been educated properly. Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals. They have principled moral objections. Good arguments can be garnered for the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
If you saw the movie "In and Out"—though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd—there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused.
It was meant to be funny (it was), but it also makes a valid point. There is a natural law argument against homosexuality. And guess what? As silly as it was made to sound in the movie, there is a fundamental sensibility to it.
Now, it might be that those who hold such a view are mistaken. My point is, however, this isn't just raw prejudice. It's a principled point of view. A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
There are good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral, too. Even if I'm mistaken on that fact—I don't think I am, but even if I were—at least I could say I'm not simply making my position against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color. Instead, it's a principled position and I'm capable of giving good reasons for it.
I can anticipate an objection here. Someone says, "You may think that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, but you have no right to force your view on us." Well, whether I have the right to force it on you or not is a debatable question, actually. All laws force someone's moral view on another. Regardless, that's not what is happening here. And this is my second point.
This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual—a Christian tract regarding homosexuality—and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.
You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them. This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.
Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.
This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
Yes, I think the President was within his rights to address this group, just like he would address any other group of Americans. But I think he should have put the issue in its proper perspective. He should have said, "Homosexuals as Americans should have the very same rights and protections every other American has."
By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
"But I can't marry whomever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister (Perish the thought!), or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.
But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

Stand to Reason - www.str.org - Training Christian Ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/homosexuality/equalrig.htm

[ajohnson]

Great article. Thanks for keeping the issue, the issue. It's about homosexuals wanting or demanding acceptance or legitimacy from society. We as a society ought to be allowed to discuss issue (with civility) and not have active justices writing new laws into place.

I grew up with a father who was a homosexual (in the 70's) - believe me when I say - it is an unnatural relationship. And as you said, even if same sex marriages are 'legalized' people still can't marry whom ever they want. There are still laws against marring their sister or mother or father, etc.

Keep on writing and talking (love your radio show)

Regards,

Alan

[rossum]

Looking at the opening post it strikes me that Mr Koukl really needs to think a bit more carefully about what he has written in his piece:

"But I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man.

I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have the same right.

I am sure that half my homosexual friends will be grateful to Greg for his support of their right to marry the woman of their choice, that is the half who are lesbians.

It does puzzle me what he expects to happen to all those women who have married a man - as he says "well you can't if it's a man." This is certainly an interesting new take on the discussion about gay marriage. Is Mr Koukl perhaps a divorce lawyer trying to drum up a lot of new business by forcing all women who married a man to separate from their husbands?


rossum

[OneFollowingHim]

Did you see the thread I started here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19536)? The title is The Homosexual Marriage Debate & Proper vs. Improper Discrimination.

The thread got hijacked, but it makes some good points like the ones Greg makes in his commentary.

[James]

Yes, I think the President was within his rights to address this group, just like he would address any other group of Americans. But I think he should have put the issue in its proper perspective. He should have said, "Jews as Americans should have the very same rights and protections every other American has."
By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
"But I can't woship wherever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
"But, I can't woship in the place I would like to." Well, you can if it's a Church; you can't if it's a Jewish Temple. Neither can I. I can't worship in any place that I want. If I wanted to worship in a Mosque (Perish the thought!), or a Jewish Temple, I couldn't do so. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to worship in a church of any Christian denomination. Jews have that very same right.
But they say, "I don't want to worship a false prophet in a Christian church, I want to worship Yahweh in a Jewish Temple." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Americans, Jews should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as Jews, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

Does that sound about right?

[The Laughing Man]

If you saw the movie "In and Out"—though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd—there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused.

:hehe: I've often thought that if I ever decide to visit San Francisco, I'm going to have the words "EXIT ONLY" tattooed on my keister.

This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual—a Christian tract regarding homosexuality—and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.

I think this incident involved Wisconsin Christians United. It sounds familiar, but I'm still looking for it.

This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.

Amen to that, Greg! Absolutely, 100%, unerringly correct.

[EvoUK]

I've often thought that if I ever decide to visit San Francisco, I'm going to have the words "EXIT ONLY" tattooed on my keister.


Actually, China town is a larger part of San Fransisco, the homosexual quarter is just the famous bit. Can't think why, there are far more interesting places to visit.

This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.

Odd, I always thought it was about having the right to marry (as in the state version of marry, not the petty religious "homosexuals are abominations" bit) and not being disliked for ones sexual preferences. Out of all the homosexuals I know, I don't know any who want perople to approve of their behaviour. They just don't want to be treated like **** because of their sexual preferences.

And as an aside, I know America is religiously backward (as shown perfectly by one of Jinks previous threads), but it seems odd to me to think that the "rank and file" find mere homosexuality "morally objectionable". Perhaps it's [i]because[/b] the "rank and file" are religiously backward that they think this... who knows?

[C. D. Ward]

James: :bow:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Great article. Thanks for keeping the issue, the issue. It's about homosexuals wanting or demanding acceptance or legitimacy from society. We as a society ought to be allowed to discuss issue (with civility) and not have active justices writing new laws into place.

It took about 70 years for women to get the right to vote.

It took over 30 rough years and a Civil War, bloodiest war in US history to abolish slavery.

Its called seperation of powers for a reason. When the Legislature doesn't do its job, the seperation of powers allows for the other branches to do it for them.

[The Laughing Man]

I know America is religiously backward

Of course it is! And I thank God that it is! God's ways are not the ways of the world.

[EvoUK]

God's ways are not the ways of the world.

Well they were once, but fortunately the world has moved on from that...

[Vorkosigan]

This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.

No. If you simply refused to engage in homosexual acts, that would be fine. No one could fault you. But right-wing Christians also harass and attack gays, and attempt to deny them civil rights. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions.

No, they prevent bigots from harassing people with their nueroses about what others do with their genitals.

Although it should be stated here I do not at all favor hate speech laws, and would love to see them abolished.

And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual—a Christian tract regarding homosexuality—and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.

The case was in wisconsin, wasn't it? A firefighter -- a city worker -- was harassing his fellow employees with tracts about homosexuality and was nearly canned for it . Instead he got diversity training. At least I think that's the one you are talking about.

Vorkosigan

[The Laughing Man]

Well they were once, but fortunately the world has moved on from that...

Um, nope. God's ways have never been the ways of the world. God's ways have always stood against the ways of the world.

But I'm sure that won't stop you from believing that "when Christianity ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages." :lol:

[Anitra]

I am for equal rights for homosexuals and for heterosexuals, for people who think that homosexuality is a sin, and for people who think that homosexuality is not a sin.

I oppose any law or any interpretation of a law that seeks to prevent someone from thinking that a behavior is wrong and from saying so. At the same time, though, free speech runs in both directions. Everyone has the right to say what they think true. No one has the right to say so unquestioned, unchallenged, and unopposed. Mr. Koukl has the right to say that homosexuality is sinful if that is what he believes, and anyone else in the world has the right to say that Mr. Koukl is a bigot if that is what they believe. Criticism is not censorship.

Mr. Koukl is correct that we humans can and must control each other's behavior. Any society, to be a society, must have some common agreements about right behavior. These agreements grow and change over time, and public discussions like this are part of the process by which they grow and change.

I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, but I do not think that the rights or well-being of any homosexual are endangered by someone believing and saying that homosexuality is a sin -- as long as the person who believes that homosexuality is a sin is also abiding by the principles of compassion that are central to Christianity. No one is better or worse than another, whatever our sins. We are to value everyone equally and treat them all with the same love we treat ourselves, regardless of their sins.

Only by openly expressing what we think is right and what we think is wrong can we resolve conflicts and find common agreements.

A fundamental precept of the founding of the United States, however, is that our right to control each other by law is severely limited, constitutional to the extent and only to the extent that is required to protect the equal rights of others. No moral beliefs can be enforced arbitrarily without eventual challenge, because this is a society of many different cultures. The only basis on which limiting an individual's behavior can be justified, under our constitution, is if that behavior causes demonstrable harm to the well-being and rights of others. Behavior cannot be censored simply because some portion of the population considers it objectionable. You have the right to be protected from harm. You do not have the right to be protected from being offended.

It may be, and is, argued by many that it is a harm to be offended and that some offensiveness is extreme enough to warrant legal limit -- such as nudity on prime time television, or standing on the streetcorner yelling epithets at passers-by, or verbal abuse of another citizen on any basis including race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Such arguments are always double-edged, however. Many, many people, for instance, are offended and outraged by fundamentalist Christianity. If fundamentalist Christians are able to make what offends their sensibilities illegal, then people who are offended by them can make public expressions of fundamentalist Christianity illegal. I do not want that, and I do not believe many people do, including fundamentalist Christians.

If homosexuality is a sin, so are drunkenness, smoking, littering, and abusive language. Some of those things, it is appropriate to control legally. Driving while drunk, smoking where non-smokers are going to be afflicted with your smoke unwillingly, littering public areas, are all infringements on the rights of others, and are illegal. Some things, even when they are commonly regarded as wrong, are not appropriate for legal control. Making alcohol illegal, for instance, proved to cause more problems than it solves. Enforcing legal control of sexual behavior -- such as to make unsafe and unhygienic sexual practices, which create a danger to public health, illegal -- requires an invasion of privacy that most of us consider unacceptable. Alcoholism and unsafe sex seem best addressed by education and peer pressure.

Within private space, any person has the right to forbid what is offensive to us and require people to leave if they do not abide by our standards. But publicly, the only things we can control legally are 1) that which does demonstrable harm to the rights of others, 2) where legal control will not cause more problems than it solves.

Homosexual sex, and same-sex marriage, do not do any demonstrable harm to the rights of anyone else, and therefore none of us have the right to place any more legal limits on it than we do on heterosexual marriage. The place of the government in heterosexual marriage is the same as in any contractual relations between citizens: to insure that none of those involved in the contract are being coerced or defrauded, and that those involved are held equally accountable to the contract they agreed on with each other. The government has NO other justifiable role: it cannot determine the details of the contract, that is up to the individuals involved. No traditional conservative approves of increasing governmental interference in personal decisions, and this is one thing that both liberals and conservatives agree on.

In the matter of marriage, the government has an additional interest in 1) preserving public health by determining if either party has a communicable or inheritable illness, and 2) insuring that any children of the union are adequately cared for and educated, because any children are of value to all the community.

Unsafe and unhygienic sexual practices are a danger to public health, but such practices as anal sex are not practiced by all or even most homosexuals. To begin with, half of all homosexuals are lesbians. In addition, most homosexual men find anal sex to be as distasteful as most heterosexual men do. While anal sex is probably practiced by more gay couples than heterosexual couples, it is practiced by many heterosexual couples, while many homosexual couples do not practice it. Categorically banning all homosexual marriages because some homosexuals practice anal sex is no more just than banning all heterosexual marriages because some heterosexuals practice anal sex.

There are reputable studies demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples are as well off as children raised by opposite-sex couples. I noted that one of the posters in this thread, raised by gay parents, had an unhappy childhood. I grieve for him. I was raised by heterosexual parents, and I had an unhappy childhood. I hope that he feels the same sympathy for me. Neither same-gender parents nor opposite-gender parents guarantees either happiness or unhappiness.

The argument that both heterosexual men and homosexual men are equally forbidden to marry a man, and therefore there is no discrimination, is specious. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman, then the right of marriage to the person of one's choice is being abridged solely on the basis of gender, which is arbitrary gender discrimination and is unjust. Homosexuals are not in any way demanding more rights than heterosexuals have.

The right to marry the person of our choice does not include the right to marry parakeets, cucumbers, computers, or our own offspring, because there is a demonstrable public interest in legally forbidding those marriages. There is no "partnership," no mutual contractual obligations, relevant to a relationship between a human being and a vegetable or an inanimate object. It is questionable whether a contractual of mutual obligations is relevant to a relationship between human and animal. Bestiality, moreover, is a public health risk; there is no "safe sex" in bestiality. Most of the worst plagues and diseases in human history have crossed over, one way or another, from our livestock. An adult marrying a child who has not reached the age of informed consent is an infringement on the rights of a child; for a parent to do so would be a trespass against one who has a right to expect special protection from that adult, not sexual exploitation. Incest leading to pregnancy is playing genetic roulette.

There is justification for legally forbidding, or refusing to recognize, such marriages. Unless it can be demonstrated that same-sex marriages do demonstrable harm to the rights of others, however, there is no justification for legally forbidding them.

I am now about to find out what the length limits are on Theology web posts. :lol:

[Symphony X]

Excellent post, Anitra!

[Bill Mutz]

Actually, the reason many men find homosexuality troubling is that they are troubled by the idea of their social and physical equals seeing them in the same light as they see women. Why do you think they attempt to portray us as pantywaists? Oh, believe me, real queers don't do it in half-measures. We like buff, hairy-chested men. I tend to be a bit long and spindly myself, but I do spend time at the gym whenever I have time. The slanderous misrepresentation we have as drag queens and suchlike is accurate only to a minority who is usually laughed at by Real Man Lovers (RML). Why this misrepresentation? Quite simple. Putting us in this caricature helps them cope with the fact of our existence. This is why the movement of changing attitudes toward the status of women is so important to gay rights.

You don't believe me? Look at the polls! Last I checked, the group that is most likely to support us are democrat-voting women with a higher level of education, and men tended to be less likely in all polled groups. Oh, but wait! Aren't women also much more likely to be very religious? Besides, just talk to any random gay-hating man between the ages of 16 and 27. Many of them are perfectly fine with homosexual women. You'd be surprised at how many of this sort you will find.

[Queen]

"All men are created equal"

That reminds me of Martin Luther King:"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Than black people were treated like 'different' and marriage was not allowed between a black and white person. We stepped beyond that (although the world is still insane enough about this matter as well).....we realized that there is just one race...the human race.......Are we still more close-minded then animals who don't have trouble with homosexual relationships at all? Cause some birds are mates for life......even if they are from the same gender. Are we not evolved beyond our simple animal instinct and does our thinking still allows discrmination of the worsed kind.......even the human rights bill says that you can marry who you want (conscenting adults, before I get those repeated silly arguments about pedophila.....:tongue:) Show me a good natural and social based agrument that two people of the same gender can not be married with the same rights as heterosexuals who are married. And don't strat about reproducton cause we are NOT going to be extinct when two people do not have children. I don't have children I am involunatairy barren and I DON'T want to hear that this is not a reason to marry.........cause that means that every barren person is not allowed to have the same rights as well.

Queen

[ajohnson]

"All men are created equal"

That reminds me of Martin Luther King:"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Than black people were treated like 'different' and marriage was not allowed between a black and white person. We stepped beyond that (although the world is still insane enough about this matter as well).....we realized that there is just one race...the human race.......Are we still more close-minded then animals who don't have trouble with homosexual relationships at all? Cause some birds are mates for life......even if they are from the same gender. Are we not evolved beyond our simple animal instinct and does our thinking still allows discrmination of the worsed kind.......even the human rights bill says that you can marry who you want (conscenting adults, before I get those repeated silly arguments about pedophila.....:tongue:) Show me a good natural and social based agrument that two people of the same gender can not be married with the same rights as heterosexuals who are married. And don't strat about reproducton cause we are NOT going to be extinct when two people do not have children. I don't have children I am involunatairy barren and I DON'T want to hear that this is not a reason to marry.........cause that means that every barren person is not allowed to have the same rights as well.

Queen

Yep - open mined every one of us.

[Queen]

Gosh.....I CAN NOT type!!!!!!!!!! :doh:

ajohnson......I do not understand exactly what you mean.......sorry about that, could you explain it to me more?

LOLAS
Queen

[ajohnson]

Gosh.....I CAN NOT type!!!!!!!!!! :doh:

ajohnson......I do not understand exactly what you mean.......sorry about that, could you explain it to me more?

LOLAS
Queen

You are equating trying to live a Biblical standard with closed mindedness - so much so that you are very closed minded when it comes to discussing societal standards in some instances - homosexual marriages being one.

I try to read most of the threads and particular posters.
You are one of them. I've noticed that no matter the argument you don't see a difference between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages. You don't refute the arguments made forth, you just continually repeat what you've already said.

Mr Koukl's points are valid, his logic is clear and straight forward, and reasoning is sound and worthy of discussion -

But it seems that the desire is just to allow an 'anything goes' policy no matter the harm to themself or others - especially the general welfare of society. Because I want want family to mean something. And if marrage means nothing, then neither does family.

But you've already eliminated any discussion because you don't want to hear any 'silly arguments'.

You are obviously bright and intelligent and yet you don't want to see the slippery slope this will act start, at least in America.

:offtopic:

The slippery slope warned about in abortion is happening - that is if we can redefine what a 'person' is, then we can redefine who can be one. And the older people in our society are covertly being asked "should you really live that lone? In the several states there is legislation where if you get past a certain age it's OK to kill youself.

here (http://www.euthanasia.com/index.html)

Excuse the off topic.

But it's true - even here in a small midwestern town in the middle of the US of A, a homosexual couple can life together and no one will bother them - just like a heterosexual couple can live and both can stay together forever. And people can't marry whomever they want too.

Hope this helps.

Alan

[Queen]

Thanks Alan!

Okay, a discussion.

Biological seen homosexuality is natural and they discovered 425 (give or take a few) species that have homosexual relationships. As you know certain birds species mate for life. You can compare this with the human marriage. There are also same sex couples that stay together for life, even raise young if an egg somehow gets in their nest.

Humans are a part of the animal kingdom, so why should it be different for them?

The dutch society is prove that same gender marriage doesn't cause any slippery slopes. No one gets hurt in the process. It is accepted in our society as normal. We didn't had to lower our moral standards at all. I fail to see the connection between same gender marriage and a slippery slope.......Is society getting worse, less moral in general because two people decide to spend the rest of their lives together and want to be treated as any other married couple with the same benefits and rules? In the USA there is a high divorce percentage (here as well....but I have to look the numbers up). People marry to quickly or discover certain things that are wrong. The moment women were able to take care of themself and divorce rules were changed many women left their marriage. A lot of things someties happen behind closed doors. Did this cause a slippery slope in society? No, of course not....women finally were able to free choice and were not forced to stay with a guy, because if they left him, they starved to death and were not able to raise their children. It gave them freedom. They had the same rights as men, finally.

If your same gender partner gets seriously ill, they only allow family to attend the ill person and the lover is not family, because they are married. They are kept apart.......and are not able to say goodbye when someone of them dies. Imagine you not being allowed to see your wife in such a moment.

Simple things....just the simple things married couples benefit from is a right same gender couples don't have. This is called discrimination and it is the same as discriminating someone for the color of their skin or for their religious believes. It is just the way someone is (and in the case of religion You make that choice....with your sexuality and your skin color, you do not have a choice. It is who you are)

"All men are created equal" one of the first famous lines in the state of independence........ALL is the keyword here. Let's treat all men the same way and give them the same rights as any other human being.

I know that there are a lot of countries that think of homosexuality as a illness......and they place the people in psychiatric hospitals, under the most awful circumstances. In other countries people are still executed for the "crime" sodomy. This is worse, horrible and I know people are not treated like that in the USA. But you call yourself the land of the free. And you are a country that is proud of that freedom. Act like it and don't act like those other countries that oppress people because they are diffent.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[NotQiteEinstein]

When did humans start learning morals from animals? Planet of the Apes?

If a "gay" person makes a request for their partner to see them in the hospital all the patient has to do is make a request for that person to see them.

All stats show children do better with a mother and father in a stable relationship.

My brother is a hotty, who would it hurt if we married each other, I'm sorry to say my sister also cannot bear children but she is quite hot as well I would never marry her perish the thought but we could hook up. Should society give it the green light? Would it be OK if there were TV shows that had to have at least one incestuous couple(father/son, sister/brothers, mother/son) those can also be found in the animal kindom.

[C. D. Ward]

If a "gay" person makes a request for their partner to see them in the hospital all the patient has to do is make a request for that person to see them.
How does a patient in a coma make such a request? :ahem:

[OneFollowingHim]

How does a patient in a coma make such a request? :ahem:
Simple. Power of attorney! Much easier than forcing the marriage issue IMHO. :ahem:

[NotQiteEinstein]

How does a patient in a coma make such a request? :ahem:

Wow, you got me, you win. The person in a coma really wouldn't complain though. Are laws made with the extreme in mind?

[C. D. Ward]

Wow, you got me, you win. The person in a coma really wouldn't complain though. Are laws made with the extreme in mind?
Well, I guess it's okay to starve Terri Schiavo to death...she won't complain, right? :wink:

Obviously it's not just the rights of the patient that are at issue here, it's also the rights of the patient's loved ones. Same-sex partners do not have the same visitation rights or rights to determine medical treatment for their partner as married spouses. And that's only one of a rather large number of such rights enjoyed by married couples that are denied to same-sex (and non-married opposite-sex) couples. For many of these rights, there are simply no remedies (i.e., no legal way to enjoy them outside of marriage). At the very least, civil unions would provide a way for such couples to enjoy equal treatment under the law. That's not special rights, as Koukl's strawman claims.

[NotQiteEinstein]

OFH answered your question. I don't believe the government should endorse that lifestyle in no way shape or form, how about that. And before you answer see post 22 and answer why those groups I mentioned cannot ask for the same rights.

[C. D. Ward]

Simple. Power of attorney! Much easier than forcing the marriage issue IMHO. :ahem:
Not simple! Relatives enjoy some degree of success in fighting powers of attorney given to non-related persons.

I'm not talking about forcing the "marriage issue"; I'm not an advocate of anything other than civil unions. I.e., a legal remedy to this issue. I couldn't care less whether or not people "marry." Civil marriage is a legal contract, nothing more and nothing less and there's simply no reason why there should not be a similar remedy available to same-sex couples.

[C. D. Ward]

OFH answered your question.
Not satisfactorily.

I don't believe the government should endorse that lifestyle in no way shape or form, how about that.
Equality before the law cannot possibly amount to an "endorsement" of any lifestyle. The State cannot execute any individual without due process of law, even those convicted of murder. This certainly doesn't amount to an endorsement of murder.

And before you answer see post 22 and answer why those groups I mentioned cannot ask for the same rights.
I don't see any reason why sibling-sibling living arrangements should not also share the same legal rights. Such relationships wouldn't necessarily have to be incestuous (maiden aunts living together comes to mind). But even so, the question of incest (or children) is utterly irrelevant to this issue. It's about equality of rights before the law. Who gets to define what a "family" is? IMO, the State has no right or obligation to do so.

[OneFollowingHim]

Not simple! Relatives enjoy some degree of success in fighting powers of attorney given to non-related persons.On what basis? Are you saying Power of Attorney doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to for the parties involved?

I'm not talking about forcing the "marriage issue"; I'm not an advocate of anything other than civil unions. I.e., a legal remedy to this issue.Government recognition of same-sex marrige (or civil unions with the same benefits) creates more problems than it remedies. Do you have any idea why the government is involved in licensing marriage and granting some privileges to the one man/one woman relationship in the first place?

I couldn't care less whether or not people "marry." Civil marriage is a legal contract, nothing more and nothing less and there's simply no reason why there should not be a similar remedy available to same-sex couples.No reason? How about same-sex relationships are immoral? Homosexuality preys on a weakness in the human condition, namely sexual desire. That desire is improperly applied.

I have sexual desires that I keep under control. Not because I want to, but because it's the right thing to do.

Singles ought to abstain from the indulgence of sexual intercourse because it's the right thing to do. Otherwise, they should marry a member of the opposite sex to satisfy their sexual desires. Bed hopping creates many problems, ie. sexually transmitted diseases, emotional pain and out-of-wedlock children to name just a few.

[C. D. Ward]

On what basis? Are you saying Power of Attorney doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to for the parties involved?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Power of Attorney can be attacked legally and individuals with a higher degree of relationship can be granted priority standing. Blood relatives and spouses qualify. PoA simply isn't as strong as a marital covenant or blood relationship. Moreover, PoA cannot satisfy many of the legal benefits of marriage, some of which are obtainable by no other method.

Government recognition of same-sex marrige (or civil unions with the same benefits) creates more problems than it remedies. Do you have any idea why the government is involved in licensing marriage and granting some privileges to the one man/one woman relationship in the first place?
Do you? Newsflash: it's not procreation.

No reason? How about same-sex relationships are immoral? Homosexuality preys on a weakness in the human condition, namely sexual desire. That desire is improperly applied.
Rubbish and irrelevant. Getting married for the wrong reason (money, sex, etc) is just as immoral, but we don't scrutinize opposite-sex couples and only approve those matches that meet our moral standards.

I have sexual desires that I keep under control. Not because I want to, but because it's the right thing to do.
As do I, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Singles ought to abstain from the indulgence of sexual intercourse because it's the right thing to do. Otherwise, they should marry a member of the opposite sex to satisfy their sexual desires. Bed hopping creates many problems, ie. sexually transmitted diseases, emotional pain and out-of-wedlock children to name just a few.
Again, irrelevant. Same or opposite-sex couples involved in a monogamous relationship are not single by definition.

[OneFollowingHim]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Power of Attorney can be attacked legally and individuals with a higher degree of relationship can be granted priority standing. Blood relatives and spouses qualify. PoA simply isn't as strong as a marital covenant or blood relationship. Moreover, PoA cannot satisfy many of the legal benefits of marriage, some of which are obtainable by no other method.Then fix that. It's silly for the government to endorse immorality for the purposes of hospital visitations.


Do you? Newsflash: it's not procreation.The question is for you.


Rubbish and irrelevant. Getting married for the wrong reason (money, sex, etc) is just as immoral, but we don't scrutinize opposite-sex couples and only approve those matches that meet our moral standards.Permitting persons to marry who enter into traditional marriages for poor reasons is vastly different than same-sex marriage.


As do I, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.Oh, it's relevent alright and that relevence is what most people object to.


Again, irrelevant. Same or opposite-sex couples involved in a monogamous relationship are not single by definition.Again you're wrong. It's the relevent morality that is the biggest obstacle.

[C. D. Ward]

Then fix that. It's silly for the government to endorse immorality for the purposes of hospital visitations.There's really nothing to "fix". Power of attorney isn't intended to and can't provide the equity that's needed. As I said before, many of the benefits of marriage cannot be provided by PoA.

The question is for you.People get married for many different reasons; love and a desire to share one's life with another being perhaps primary.

Permitting persons to marry who enter into traditional marriages for poor reasons is vastly different than same-sex marriage.Hmmm, let's see, immorality is okay as long as it's in the context of an opposite-sex relationship rather than a homosexual one. Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy in the evening...

Oh, it's relevent alright and that relevence is what most people object to.Most people consider homosexuality distasteful, but not immoral. The only people I've ever met or with whom I've interacted who did consider so were without exception fundamentalist Christians who are, thankfully, a minority in this country.

Even so, it's still irrelevant. Many people consider adultery immoral, but it's not illegal. In this country we don't pass laws banning immoral acts simply because they're immoral; there must be a demonstrable public interest involved as well.

[OneFollowingHim]

People get married for many different reasons; love and a desire to share one's life with another being perhaps primary.
That doesn't answer the question asked. The question I want you to answer is in post #30.

Hmmm, let's see, immorality is okay as long as it's in the context of an opposite-sex relationship rather than a homosexual one. Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy in the evening...
I never said immoral heterosexuality is okay. Where did I ever say that?

Most people consider homosexuality distasteful, but not immoral. The only people I've ever met or with whom I've interacted who did consider so were without exception fundamentalist Christians who are, thankfully, a minority in this country.
Just becasue some people don't consider homosexuality immoral, doesn't meant they're right. That falls under the false idea of relativism.

Even so, it's still irrelevant. Many people consider adultery immoral, but it's not illegal. In this country we don't pass laws banning immoral acts simply because they're immoral; there must be a demonstrable public interest involved as well.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE is calling on making homosexuality illegal.

Besides your argument fails on least one count. There are lots of laws governing much of adulterous conduct. If you father a child through adultery, you gonna be held legally responsible! The court is gonna make you pay to support your child.

In the same way, there is nothing that disallows good laws governing homosexual conduct. There's nothin' wrong in that. And upholding traditional marriage is among the good laws governing homosexual conduct. (ooh, I hope this makes the "Fundies say the darndest things" list.)

[HRG_new]

Just becasue some people don't consider homosexuality immoral, doesn't meant they're right.

Just because some people don't consider homosexuality immoral, doesn't mean that they are wrong.

That falls under the false idea of relativism.

No, that's subjectivity of morals. Relativism means that te immorality of an act depends crucially on the identity of the actor, like in theistic morality.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE is calling on making homosexuality illegal.

No one was calling on to make being black illegal either, some 70 years ago. It's just that they were treated differently (euphemistically called "separate but equal") from the rest of the population, just like homosexuals are still treated today.

Besides your argument fails on least one count. There are lots of laws governing much of adulterous conduct. If you father a child through adultery, you gonna be held legally responsible! The court is gonna make you pay to support your child.

And if you father a child in legal wedlock, you gonna be held legally responsible as well. What's the difference, pray tell ?

[C. D. Ward]

That doesn't answer the question asked. The question I want you to answer is in post #30.In that case, I suppose there could be any number of reasons. Chief among them might be that stable relationships promote a stable society.

I never said immoral heterosexuality is okay. Where did I ever say that?From the post to which I was responding: "Permitting persons to marry who enter into traditional marriages for poor reasons is vastly different than same-sex marriage." IOW, entering into a relationship for "poor reasons" is better than entering into a homosexual relationship. As the "poor reasons" identified in the post to which you were responding were immoral ones, this translates into "immorality in a heterosexual relationship is better than the immorality of a homosexual one". If that's not what you meant, then you should restate to make your meaning clearer.

Just becasue some people don't consider homosexuality immoral, doesn't meant they're right. That falls under the false idea of relativism.And just because some people consider homosexuality immoral doesn't mean they're right either. That's also relativism.

Besides your argument fails on least one count. There are lots of laws governing much of adulterous conduct. If you father a child through adultery, you gonna be held legally responsible! The court is gonna make you pay to support your child.
BZZT! No, but thanks for playing. That's not a law governing adulterous conduct; it's a law governing responsibility for one's actions.

In the same way, there is nothing that disallows good laws governing homosexual conduct. There's nothin' wrong in that. And upholding traditional marriage is among the good laws governing homosexual conduct. (ooh, I hope this makes the "Fundies say the darndest things" list.)
Then I suppose there could also be good laws governing heterosexual conduct. How about one outlawing birth control? Oops, sorry, Griswold v. Connecticut already took that one out. The fact is that we generally don't regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults and that's no more than the way it should be.

"Upholding traditional marriage" isn't a law governing sexual conduct (homo or hetero). And personally, I agree that marriage, as such, should be reserved for opposite-sex couples. The issue is that there are rights and privileges accorded to married couples (that are only attainable through marriage) that have nothing whatever to do with the sex of the participants and the denial of these rights to same-sex couples represents an inequality under law that violates the constitutional guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.

[FreeBrightMind]

It's only a matter of time till Gays win their freedom and equality in America. Everyday brings it closer to fruision. We'll someday live up to the creed that this country was founded on. That of freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Be sure to bear in mind that the physical facts surrounding homosexuality are more complicated than either side tends to care to admit.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27035

Also, there is a need to bear in mind that there are two competing def'ns of homosexuality in common use nowadays; One who commits homosexual acts, or one who has a homosexual orientation. The bible only addresses the first def'n and normally the debate over homosexuality is geared primarily to the 2nd def'n.

Its also important for both sides to bear in mind how homosexual rights has become associated in the minds of many with a whole host of issues.

That is why homosexual marriage is such a divisive political issue.

dlw

[OneFollowingHim]

It's only a matter of time till Gays win their freedom and equality in America. Everyday brings it closer to fruision. We'll someday live up to the creed that this country was founded on. That of freedom, liberty, and justice for all.
Justice for all? What's just about encouraging immoral conduct? Honestly, if we ever begin to call what is good, bad and what is bad, good, America is in trouble.

I wonder? Are we no longer able to distinguish anything as sexually immoral?

[OneFollowingHim]

Be sure to bear in mind that the physical facts surrounding homosexuality are more complicated than either side tends to care to admit.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27035

Also, there is a need to bear in mind that there are two competing def'ns of homosexuality in common use nowadays; One who commits homosexual acts, or one who has a homosexual orientation. The bible only addresses the first def'n and normally the debate over homosexuality is geared primarily to the 2nd def'n.

Its also important for both sides to bear in mind how homosexual rights has become associated in the minds of many with a whole host of issues.

That is why homosexual marriage is such a divisive political issue.

dlwBear in mind? Hmmmmmmmmm, bear in mind, you say. We must bear this in mind. It's as if you say we should equally consider the validity of both sides. It's complex, you say. Your profile indcates you are a Christian. I must ask...

Is opposition to homosexual conduct or behavior morally superior and the acceptance of said conduct morally inferior? Or are both sides morally equal? I'm not talking about the worth of people, but rather, as you eloquently point out, the sexual conduct of some people. What is your stance?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Bear in mind? Hmmmmmmmmm, bear in mind, you say. We must bear this in mind. It's as if you say we should equally consider the validity of both sides. It's complex, you say. Your profile indcates you are a Christian. I must ask...

Right conduct requires both a knowledge of scripture and an understanding of the relevant facts for a situation. At issue are the facts surrounding the claims of the relevant fixity of what is posited as a homosexual orientation.

My point is that the survey of the literature that I linked to supports the notion that there is a biological basis for both some people having homosexual orientations, and people choosing to engage in homosexual acts.

Is opposition to homosexual conduct or behavior morally superior and the acceptance of said conduct morally inferior? Or are both sides morally equal? I'm not talking about the worth of people, but rather, as you eloquently point out, the sexual conduct of some people. What is your stance?

I believe that our sexualities are gifts from God meant to be enjoyed properly within a heterosexual lifelong monogamous marriage. I also believe that we live in a fallen world. One aspect of the fallenness of this world is that some people seem to be born with a sexual attraction to people of the same sex. This is not due to their genes, but rather most like to the hormonal balance formed in their brains while they were fetuses. Experience has shown that it is very difficult for them to change in their orientation.

And so we face a somewhat different situation/question today than in NT times. Back then, one's orientation had nothing to do with committing homosexual acts. It was a brutal way that men expressed their dominion over other men, saying to me you are a woman, or worthless.

I think I made my views very clear earlier in this thread and elsewhere. Why the blank are you getting all worked up and questioning my Christianity?

dlw

[OneFollowingHim]

Why?

It's the way you respond. You seem to exhibit acceptance of the behavior. Your whole post is riddled with a distorted view of what the proper response to sin ought to be. What is happening is a major shift in American society on the acceptance of homosexual conduct. You say...

My point is that the survey of the literature that I linked to supports the notion that there is a biological basis for both some people having homosexual orientations, and people choosing to engage in homosexual acts.
So what? Look at your words. You link to something that supports sin. I see little in your posts about rejecting the actions of homosexuals. All the while you out looking for the facts, the wholesale proliferation of the behavior is occurring.

In your last post you say...

And so we face a somewhat different situation/question today than in NT times. Back then, one's orientation had nothing to do with committing homosexual acts.
One's orientation had nothing to do with homosexual acts? I disagree for the reasons outlined in Romans.


22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Are you telling us that two men engaged in homosexual acts each is expressing "dominion" over the other? They were inflamed with lust for one another for goodness' sake!

What about women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"? Is that about exhibiting dominion over other women?

The bible says that "they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". It's nice to know we all sin, but it's far better to tell someone it's wrong and they ought not engage in the sinful activity. And for the radical homosexual activist, nothing less than full rejection ought to be the Christian's response.

[C. D. Ward]

Justice for all? What's just about encouraging immoral conduct? Honestly, if we ever begin to call what is good, bad and what is bad, good, America is in trouble.I quite agree. Generally, we have a good deal of agreement on what consitutes good and bad. Unfortunately in some areas, there is disagreement; this is one. However, one issue or even a few issues doesn't condemn the whole to the dustbin...

I wonder? Are we no longer able to distinguish anything as sexually immoral?Of course; it's just that rational people don't characterize responsible sexual activities between consenting adults as immoral.

[OneFollowingHim]

Of course; it's just that rational people don't characterize responsible sexual activities between consenting adults as immoral.
So if a man lies and tells a woman everything she wants to hear for the mere purpose of getting her to consent to sex with him, and then dumps her, nothing immoral occurred? Oh, and the guy did use a condom. They wanted to have sex responsibly.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Why?

It's the way you respond. You seem to exhibit acceptance of the behavior. Your whole post is riddled with a distorted view of what the proper response to sin ought to be. What is happening is a major shift in American society on the acceptance of homosexual conduct. You say...

There is a shift going on with many towards an undiscriminated acceptance of homosexual acts. In pointing out that the facts show that both choice and the lack of choice is involved, I by no means say that it is okay for people to engage in homosexual acts or that a homosexual orientation is just as good as a heterosexual orientation. You are reading too much into my words.

So what? Look at your words. You link to something that supports sin. I see little in your posts about rejecting the actions of homosexuals. All the while you out looking for the facts, the wholesale proliferation of the behavior is occurring.

The delineation of facts doesn't say something is or isn't sinful, even when the people doing the study have sinful views/lives themselves.

We must understand the big picture and the facts before we can intelligently decide what the best course of action is to counter the sinful lifestyle choices promoted by some gay-rights activists that skewer the message of the civil rights activists.

In your last post you say...

And so we face a somewhat different situation/question today than in NT times. Back then, one's orientation had nothing to do with committing homosexual acts.

One's orientation had nothing to do with homosexual acts? I disagree for the reasons outlined in Romans.


22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Are you telling us that two men engaged in homosexual acts each is expressing "dominion" over the other? They were inflamed with lust for one another for goodness' sake!

What about women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"? Is that about exhibiting dominion over other women?

The bible says that "they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". It's nice to know we all sin, but it's far better to tell someone it's wrong and they ought not engage in the sinful activity. And for the radical homosexual activist, nothing less than full rejection ought to be the Christian's response.

I am afraid that you are reading our modern-day understanding of homosexuality into the NT text. The concept that someone could have a homosexual orientation was not part of the world-view of anyone in the time of the NT.

Part of loving our enemies is to take the time to understand the facts of difficult issues like this one. The relative fixity of a homosexual orientation has been shown. Just because there are exceptions to this and us non-homosexuals are capable of engaging in homosexual acts does not negate that fact and the ethical dilemma of how we minister to the homosexual who cannot change and who lacks the gift of life-long celibacy.

dlw

[C. D. Ward]

So if a man lies and tells a woman everything she wants to hear for the mere purpose of getting her to consent to sex with him, and then dumps her, nothing immoral occurred? Oh, and the guy did use a condom. They wanted to have sex responsibly.
Do you mean to suggest that lying is responsible behavior? Come now, you'll have to convince me you believe this yourself before I can take such an absurd example seriously...

[OneFollowingHim]

Do you mean to suggest that lying is responsible behavior? Come now, you'll have to convince me you believe this yourself before I can take such an absurd example seriously...No, in the context of consentual sex, what's wrong with my example? Nothing, right? They both consented to have sex with each other. She got what she wanted when he told her what she wanted to hear and he got what he wanted in the sack. Did she do any lying? Like say, to herself?

Don't you get it? Sex is too often used in the wrong way. That's why it's immoral when used improperly. There's a right way and a wrong way for adults to have sex. And I gave you an example of the wrong way responsible adults engage in consentual sex and you still refuse to see. Sheeeeeeesh! :ahem:

You said...


Of course; it's just that rational people don't characterize responsible sexual activities between consenting adults as immoral.
Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, give us your best example of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults. :popcorn:

[C. D. Ward]

No, in the context of consentual sex, what's wrong with my example? Nothing, right? They both consented to have sex with each other. She got what she wanted when he told her what she wanted to hear and he got what he wanted in the sack. Did she do any lying? Like say, to herself?Consent implies an equality on the basis of information; information about the encounter in question (in this context). Therefore, there can be no true consent in the presence of falsification of circumstance. Therefore, the girl's consent was not legitimate as she gave that consent based upon deliberately false information provided by her prospective partner.

IOW, lying invalidates the possibility of consent.

Don't you get it? Sex is too often used in the wrong way. That's why it's immoral when used improperly. There's a right way and a wrong way for adults to have sex. And I gave you an example of the wrong way responsible adults engage in consentual sex and you still refuse to see. Sheeeeeeesh! :ahem: I agree that sex is too often used in the wrong way, both by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

At any rate, your example was not one of responsible adults engaging in consensual sex. Your example was of a situation where one partner induced another into sexual contact based on a false premise. In that case, there was no actual consent.

By analogy: if I told you that I was going to sell you a Ferrari and delivered a Yugo, would you argue that your agreement (consent) to buy a Ferrari implied that you consented to take delivery of a Yugo instead?

Similarly, a partner who grants sexual relations based on a false promise has not agreed to the falsity of the promise (IOW, they relied on its being true). Hence there was no actual consent. To put it another way, if one partner had known that the other partner was lying, consent would not have been given. Therefore, the lie invalidates the consent.

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, give us your best example of immoral sexual activity between consenting adults. "Mr. Smarty Pants?" Shouldn't that kind of behavior pretty much have ceased by the end of third grade? :blush:

An easy example would be sexual relations outside of a monogamous relationship without any concern for the consequences thereof (including, but not limited to, the transmission of STDs and pregnancy).

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

A fundamental precept of the founding of the United States, however, is that our right to control each other by law is severely limited, constitutional to the extent and only to the extent that is required to protect the equal rights of others. No moral beliefs can be enforced arbitrarily without eventual challenge, because this is a society of many different cultures.Well, if a person goes insane and starts injuring himself, people have a legal right to put them in an asylum. And laws are actually about morals, rights are moral principles, we don't have two independent concepts here, rights versus morals.

Behavior cannot be censored simply because some portion of the population considers it objectionable. You have the right to be protected from harm. You do not have the right to be protected from being offended.I agree! Now why is drug use illegal? Apparently the government folks are convinced that it's harmful to the individual, they are not saying this is treading on the rights of someone else.

If homosexuality is a sin, so are drunkenness, smoking, littering, and abusive language. Some of those things, it is appropriate to control legally.I agree that it's not appropriate to make a law against every sin. So the question becomes: 1) Is homosexual behavior sinful? 2) If so, should this be addressed by legislation?

And also the question addressed in this thread is included in this: Should such relationships be formally sanctioned as marriages?

Alcoholism and unsafe sex seem best addressed by education and peer pressure.I agree that laws don't solve problems! They create them, actually!

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

A better law may actually make the situation worse, working on the law may be like working on a bomb…

If a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman, then the right of marriage to the person of one's choice is being abridged solely on the basis of gender, which is arbitrary gender discrimination and is unjust. Homosexuals are not in any way demanding more rights than heterosexuals have.Well, they are saying the rights for everyone should be extended. Now again, the question is, is this a sin? And if so, should it be restricted by legislation?

The right to marry the person of our choice does not include the right to marry parakeets, cucumbers, computers, or our own offspring, because there is a demonstrable public interest in legally forbidding those marriages.What public interest is at stake in marrying a cucumber, though?

But still, the point is that some believe that same-sex marriages, and homosexual behavior, are sinful, and should be restricted, in a similar way to the laws that try to stop people from taking illegal drugs.

Blessings,
Lee

[Hoosier]

A fundamental precept of the founding of the United States, however, is that our right to control each other by law is severely limited, constitutional to the extent and only to the extent that is required to protect the equal rights of others.

Actually, I don't believe that statement is at all accurate. The founding of the United States was largely in reaction to the economic tyranny of King George. The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as no one else is harmed came much later. In fact, at the time of the founding, public agreement as to what one ought to do was widely agreed upon. The founding had more to do with the limiting of government power in the economic realm, as well as that of rights associated with being accused of a crime, than in areas of public or private conduct. The standard of English common law was pretty universally accepted in those latter cases, and while common law largely mediated between victim and victimizer, it also addressed the common good of a virtuous society.



No moral beliefs can be enforced arbitrarily without eventual challenge, because this is a society of many different cultures. The only basis on which limiting an individual's behavior can be justified, under our constitution, is if that behavior causes demonstrable harm to the well-being and rights of others. Behavior cannot be censored simply because some portion of the population considers it objectionable. You have the right to be protected from harm. You do not have the right to be protected from being offended.

While I agree with your last statement, regarding my own individual 'right' to be protected from being offended, I'm afraid that you're extrapolating your earlier revision of history to make the establishment of the United States about something very different than it was. The founding was based upon the idea that a Higher Law existed to which all were equally accountable (including those with political power), not upon the idea that no law existed except that another not be directly harmed. In fact, even if we have many cultures within our borders now, at that time culture was much more homogenous among the children of the white settlers, and the norms that the natives might have advocated were considered barbaric. Objectionable behaviors WERE censored, routinely, in various ways. The right not to be censored is nowhere in the Bill of Rights.


If homosexuality is a sin, so are drunkenness, smoking, littering, and abusive language. Some of those things, it is appropriate to control legally. Driving while drunk, smoking where non-smokers are going to be afflicted with your smoke unwillingly, littering public areas, are all infringements on the rights of others, and are illegal.

Laws against, or penalties in the form of "sin taxes" connected to most of the list you likened to homosexual activity were not passed on the assumption that someone else's rights had beeen violated. They were passed because certain activities were percieved as morally wrong, and deserving penalty, though one commesurate with the moral affront. This was in relation to a moral ideal. The precept which you are claiming, and reading back into history, is a very recent development. It was not part of the formulation of penalties, except in the form of mitigation.


Within private space, any person has the right to forbid what is offensive to us and require people to leave if they do not abide by our standards. But publicly, the only things we can control legally are 1) that which does demonstrable harm to the rights of others, 2) where legal control will not cause more problems than it solves.

Our history knows no such standards. Even today the standard regarding private space are not recognized. I could not, for instance, even if I privately owned a theater, allow patrons to smoke. The line between public and private is too hard to deliniate. No man is an island. What you or I do does effect society as a whole, but that has been secondary in the historic view, which recognized some things as inherently wrong.

Homosexual sex, and same-sex marriage, do not do any demonstrable harm to the rights of anyone else, and therefore none of us have the right to place any more legal limits on it than we do on heterosexual marriage.

Homosexual activity is historically associated with cultures in decline. It is symptomatic of cultures which have lost their earlier idealistic power. This is demonstrable. A culture with debased ideals of selfish hedonism also does deny the coming generations of the fruit of progress toward a higher end, which might be more an accident of history than a 'right", but it is still a harm.

But again, the harm issue is secondary. The Higher Law in the case of Christian and derivative societies, or higher virtue in the classic Greek and Roman models, is an end in itself, for societies as well as individuals. This seems to cross all other cultural boundries as well, though the writtten records are not as clear.

Also, marraige has always, everywhere been between heterosexuals, primarly with progeny in mind. Other relationships involving sex, such as concubinage, or more recently "shacking up", have also existed, but they haven't been called marriage. If two people engage in homosexual activity over a prolonged time it does not make it marriage. If one keeps a concubine for life it does not make her a wife. If people shack up indefinately it does not become marriage. Legal officaldom does not make marriage, it only recognizes that which exists in the natural relationships of males with females for the establishment of families.

The place of the government in heterosexual marriage is the same as in any contractual relations between citizens: to insure that none of those involved in the contract are being coerced or defrauded, and that those involved are held equally accountable to the contract they agreed on with each other. The government has NO other justifiable role: it cannot determine the details of the contract, that is up to the individuals involved.

That's a novel view, with no historical precedent. Marriage has historically been a particular thing (which has varied in minor particulars from culture to culture) into which willing people of opposite sexes entered. Marital rights (fidelity, sex) have been part of the definition of marriage, not some deal struck. Basically, you are creating a strawman definition of marriage under which, if it were accurate, there would be no grounds for denying any two (or more) people the choice of contracting to. But that is not what marriage has ever officially been anywhere, even if certain individuals have entered into it in that spirit. The fact that some people have entered into marriages that were that in name only does not justify letting the name describe something new, and your definition is certainly something new. In fact, no one ever tried to define it that way until the question of "homosexual marriage" came up, which is very recent.







The argument that both heterosexual men and homosexual men are equally forbidden to marry a man, and therefore there is no discrimination, is specious. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman, then the right of marriage to the person of one's choice is being abridged solely on the basis of gender, which is arbitrary gender discrimination and is unjust. Homosexuals are not in any way demanding more rights than heterosexuals have.

The argument is not specious. Marriage is not even primarly a question of choice. In some cultures, particularly in the past, the bride and groom did not even do the choosing. While offspring are not the product of every marriage, worldwide the primary purpose of marriage has been the security and nurture of children, products of that sexual union, or of one or the other partner from an earlier union. Today, with sex often severed from procreation, it is easy to forget that fact, but it is a key point in what marriage really is, has been, and in the true definition.

The right to marry the person of our choice does not include the right to marry parakeets, cucumbers, computers, or our own offspring, because there is a demonstrable public interest in legally forbidding those marriages. There is no "partnership," no mutual contractual obligations, relevant to a relationship between a human being and a vegetable or an inanimate object. It is questionable whether a contractual of mutual obligations is relevant to a relationship between human and animal. Bestiality, moreover, is a public health risk; there is no "safe sex" in bestiality. Most of the worst plagues and diseases in human history have crossed over, one way or another, from our livestock. An adult marrying a child who has not reached the age of informed consent is an infringement on the rights of a child; for a parent to do so would be a trespass against one who has a right to expect special protection from that adult, not sexual exploitation. Incest leading to pregnancy is playing genetic roulette.

I'm afraid that it is your argument which is specious. As I already pointed toward, laws in this arena have not been passed in the "public interest". Legislators did not, anywhere, get together and debate whether it was in the public interest for Harry to marry his horse or Dave his daughter. "Rights of a child" is an altogether new way of framing things, and never once was debated on the floor of any congress considering incest or age of consent. In our United States, rights historically were something that government could not infringe upon. Between individuals, rights were not the issue, except in the sense of right and wrong.

Marriage is, and has always been, a particular thing, though individual marriages have not always been it very well. This is true in all cultures throughout history, though most have also had other sexual relationships under other names. At no time have two individuals engaged in a long term homosexual relationship been considered married by any societal norm. To now claim that "homosexual marriage" is actually marriage will not make it so. It will simply drain the word of meaning, or change the meaning into something like your creative definition, which may sound good to you, but has no warrant in any history or culture in the world.