What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[Hamster]

You really think gay people were incapable of loving one another and that's why gay sex was banned?

[OtherCheek]

Hi OC

It is good to chat with you.

Thanks, Viv. Hope you are well.

As I read this the thought arose: why should any one get married? Really, why does or should anyone get married?

These reasons came to mind:

To have sex.

Because two people are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

Because two people wish to proclaim their love for one another in a public ceremony, in front of friends and family.

Because two people wish to create a holy union together, two becoming one.

Because they wish to raise children together.

Or if they are Mormon - to be sealed for all Eternity.

Is a 'marriage' necessary for the above, with the obvious exclusion of the last reason? If it is not, then why should any one get married? Why not civil unions all around? Or do you believe that only different sexed couples can have these desires? Can only heterosexual couples desire to not have sex until after marriage? Can only heterosexual couples desire to declare their love for one another in front of friends and family, joining in the holy unity of marriage?

[QUOTE=Vivian;3403592]
All these can take place without marriage. But if people want the blessing of God, there are restrictions and conditions upon receiving those blessings. And those restrictions and conditions for God's blessing are set forth by God, not by man. And by changing the meaning of a word, they still won't receive those blessings of God

If marriage is holy it is not because mankind made it holy, and legislation will not make it "more holy" either. I don't deny that same-sex attraction exists with some people. Although I think it is sin, I won't deny them their pleasures as they deem them. But what the government endorses, it must also enforce. And those ramifications, I fear, will trample on the rights of the religious much like Obamacare is trampling upon the rights of a Catholic hospital for which contraceptives are seen as being against the teachings of the Church.

Can't you see that you are saying that only heterosexual couples are good enough for marriage, or that only heterosexual couples desire the things that marriage brings?

Is the issue about making homosexual couples feel better about themselves? If they feel bad about themselves, changing the meaning of the term "marriage" isn't going to change that.

"Marriage" the term, is a restrictive term. One just as well change the definition of "orchard" to include "pine trees", or "male" to include girls, and "female" to include boys. Allow the term to remain a restrictive one. There is nothing wrong with restrictive terms. And changing the definition of a term will not make homosexual couple feel better about themselves.

Again, why would heterosexual couples be allowed to desire and receive the things of marriage, while homosexual couples are not?

What "things" do homosexual couples desire that they can't have by creating another term or using the term "civil unions"? Do they feel illegitimate or shameful unless they can use the term "Marriage?" If a plumber feels illegitimate because he can't practice law, does it make sense to change the restrictive meaning of "plumber" to include "lawyer and judge?"

[QUOTE=Vivian;3403592]
Do you see that the real issue is value as a human being? To think as you are describing, you have to negate homosexuals' desires - assume that they do not desire the same as heterosexual couples, or that the former desires are not as important as the latter.[/quote}

I'm not denying anyone their desires or actual human rights. They can live together, have sexual relations, fight and quarrel and file joint taxes as far as I'm concerned. But the term marriage is a term that should remain restrictive, along with other terms such as male, female, health, sickness, lawyer, doctor, etc.

The real issue is value as a human being.

I'm not any more valuable as a human being just because I got married than I was when I was single. Nor will homosexuals be any more valuable as human beings because they want to change a restrictive term to be an inclusive term--just as Mormons won't feel any more valuable or legitimate because of legislation that would require everyone to recognize us as Christian.

For your reasons to be considered beneficial to all humanity, loving, one has to say either that homosexuals do not have the same desires as heterosexuals, or that their desires are not as important, thus devaluing them as human beings.

Shalom!

There is a place for restrictive terms. Using the term "marriage" will not cause homosexuals to love each other more. Even though I love my girls, I would never think of calling them boys. And the term "marriage" cannot upgrade or degrade the value of anyone.

[Seasanctuary]

To answer the thread title, what's at stake are the same things that were at stake for black Americans under the "separate, but equal" doctrine:

1. By keeping things separate, equality — even in the sense intended — was rarely if ever achieved.

2. Even if a kind of equality were reached, the very fact of legally recognized separateness was a "badge of slavery" intended to mark black Americans as undesirables.

Addressing (1) is more immediately important, but without (2) it's unlikely to ever be achieved.

jim crow.jpg

[Vivian]

Why can't a civil union grant the very same Constitutional rights that the term marriage grants? What actual and real rights are missing for gays who wish to for a civil union?

It can! Why don't we abolish marriage all together and just have civil unions? I think it is because marriage, the unity, the sacred unity of marriage, is desirable, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.

I think the real issue is this, and please correct if I am way off, but be honest.

I believe that you feel that marriage is a religious sacrament, a joining by God, and that, at least according to your religion, God does not recognize homosexuality, or gay marriages, so any attempt to perform a gay marriage is sacrilegious. But I know many Christian gays, who believe that God honors their love and wishes for them to be married, just as he does for heterosexuals. I know not all gays are Christian, but quite a few are, and so to deny them the right to fulfill their desires to be married in God's eyes is religious intolerance. To deny gay marriage is denying marriage to many Christians. But I bet you do not think they are Christian and so their desires for marriage are wrong and should not be fulfilled, yes?

According to our constitution, this attitude is unconstitutional. To say that religious beliefs that allow and call for gay couples to get married are wrong is unconstitutional.

The Constitution is about limiting the power of Government. Not granting rights. It's also not about granting rights to a term. If it DOES grant any civil rights, those rights are actual, and real things, and not about having access to a term.

Yes, and so it is wrong for the government to deny marriage based on religious beliefs.

I'm against the term being "liberated" as you call it. Let the term be more like the Constitution--a term which defines limitations and boundaries instead of no limitations and no boundaries.

Let them behave as they like, it's the term and meaning that I wish to preserve.

A curious attitude. Do you believe that all marriage is the same? That secular marriage is the same as religious marriage is the same as temple marriage? They are all marriages, but in your mind are they not all different? So we use one term to define different types of marriages. Let's just expand the term to include additional types.

Obviously this is more about expanding the definition of "Marriage" instead of allowing it to define limits. Are you against the preservation of all words and terms that define limits?

Sometimes limits are necessary, especially when people do not love. That is the purpose of spiritual law, to govern and guide those who do not yet fully love. Limits though usually indicate the presence of fear. In God's infinite love, there are no limits. This is God's intent for us - eventually infinite limitlessness. Someone like Paul did not need limits - for me all things are allowed. But not all of us are like Paul, at least not yet. It is my hope that some day all limits will be removed and God's Divine Grace will flow unobstructed.

There is no reason to disallow gay marriage except for ignorance, bigotry, prejudice - devaluing other humans and other religious beliefs. Much of our populace is afraid. And need limits set to give them a sense of protection. We will better serve them thus better seve God by removing ignorance, showing them that there is nothing to fear from gay marriage.

Shalom!

[seanD]

To answer the thread title, what's at stake are the same things that were at stake for black Americans under the "separate, but equal" doctrine:

1. By keeping things separate, equality — even in the sense intended — was rarely if ever achieved.

2. Even if a kind of equality were reached, the very fact of legally recognized separateness was a "badge of slavery" intended to mark black Americans as undesirables.

Addressing (1) is more immediately important, but without (2) it's unlikely to ever be achieved.

jim crow.jpg

It's amazing how the left, which touts itself as being hyper-racially sensitive, seems completely oblivious (or they just don't care) to how offensive of a comparison that is to many black folks.

[Vivian]

To answer the thread title, what's at stake are the same things that were at stake for black Americans under the "separate, but equal" doctrine:

1. By keeping things separate, equality — even in the sense intended — was rarely if ever achieved.

2. Even if a kind of equality were reached, the very fact of legally recognized separateness was a "badge of slavery" intended to mark black Americans as undesirables.

Addressing (1) is more immediately important, but without (2) it's unlikely to ever be achieved.

jim crow.jpg

Ha yes! Separate but equal are words of inequality, devaluing one peoples over another. This country was founded on religious tolerance, and that foundation eventually caused slavery - which was thought by Christians then to be supported biblically - to fall.

It is my prayer that this same foundation of religious tolerance will cause the devaluing of gays and their religious beliefs to fall. Even though today we think it ludicrous to think that the Bible endorses slavery, many Christians of the past truly believed that it did. It is the same today, in the future, though many Christians of today believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, we will see that this too is ludicrous.

Shalom!

[Vivian]

You really think gay people were incapable of loving one another and that's why gay sex was banned?

Check out the history. Homosexuality in Biblical times was not two adults of the same gender in a loving relationship. Homosexuality by definition was the rape of young boys - evil men desiring to have sex with young men raping them. Back in those days, only evil peopled acted on homosexual desires. And so homosexuality was known as an evil, lustful act, seeking to satisfy one's lustful desires without regard for others.

There were no - or very few - loving same gender relationships back then.

Paul was not addressing homosexuality as we see it in our world today - Paul was speaking of evil, sexual lust, not a loving relationship between two individuals. To apply guidance given to the churches 2000 years ago to the churches today is foolish. I actually do not understand why others cannot see this.

Eating pork was a health issue - so God condemned it. It is no longer a health issue, so it is no longer condemned.

A menstruating woman was also a health issue, so they had to be isolated from society, by God's commandment. This though is no longer the case, thus no longer commanded.

Homosexuality brought great harm to others - to the young boys who were raped, and to the men whose in-satiated passions were fueled. So it was rightly condemned. But this is no longer the case, so it is no longer condemned by God.

Today, we do many things that God commanded that we not do in the past, but in today's world they do not bring harm to others. This is why the law of love rules, always we are commanded to do what is most loving. This is why we are told to look to the spirit and not the letter. The letter is misleading, because it might fit a certain time and place but not another, but the spirit behind it is Eternal.

We will get a lot more out of scripture if we understand that God desires for us to love one another, and for those who do not know how to love, he creates laws specific to time and space, to what is most loving in that time, in that culture. The spirit, or the spiritual law, is absolute. The law in application in the physical is not - it changes as humanity changes, as circumstances change, as humanity learns how to love in increasing measure.

So what is unloving, thus against the spirit, in a gay relationship?

Shalom!

[Seasanctuary]

It's amazing how the left, which touts itself as being hyper-racially sensitive, seems completely oblivious (or they just don't care) to how offensive of a comparison that is to many black folks.

You mean besides the blacks who are treating homosexuals as second class citizens and don't like being called out on it?

[seanD]

You mean besides the blacks who are treating homosexuals as second class citizens and don't like being called out on it?

Probably not what you intended, but it almost sounds like you're saying the comparison is out of spite.

[Psychic Missile]

It's amazing how the left, which touts itself as being hyper-racially sensitive, seems completely oblivious (or they just don't care) to how offensive of a comparison that is to many black folks.

What you seem to be saying is that people think homosexuals not being allowed to marry is equal in severity to Jim Crow segregation. That's a strawman. The argument is that the same thought process that justified Jim Crow segregation is being used to justify homosexuals not being allowed to marry.

[Hamster]

Check out the history. Homosexuality in Biblical times was not two adults of the same gender in a loving relationship. Homosexuality by definition was the rape of young boys - evil men desiring to have sex with young men raping them.

That's like saying Heterosexuality is the rape and exploitation of young girls. And you know gay marriages (between two men) were actually performed in ancient rome, right? Young men had sexual relationships with each other and grown men met each other in bath houses.

Back in those days, only evil peopled acted on homosexual desires. And so homosexuality was known as an evil, lustful act, seeking to satisfy one's lustful desires without regard for others.

Really? All the good gays in pagan rome were living completely celibate lives? What about Elagabalus who fell in love with his his chariot driver and literally married a man in a wedding ceremony?

You're right that a lot of what's addressed as "homosexuality" is abusive pederasty, but I find it bizarre that you think ancient gay people were either intolerable rapists or celibate saints

[Cow Poke]

You can disagree with my premises, but attacking the conclusions based on these premises is well, tacky, and makes you look dull and foolish.

Sparko doesn't need your help looking dull and foolish, Viv! He can do that all by himself!

(I got your back, Sparko!)


Viv - have you been on some kind of Spiritual GLBT Retreat?

[Darth Executor]

To answer the thread title, what's at stake are the same things that were at stake for black Americans under the "separate, but equal" doctrine:

The same comparison applies to poor people on welfare vs middle class/rich people (the former gets government benefits the last two do not), disabled people vs able people, children vs adults, etc.?

[Darth Executor]

Probably not what you intended

Don't bet on it.

[OtherCheek]

It can! Why don't we abolish marriage all together and just have civil unions? I think it is because marriage, the unity, the sacred unity of marriage, is desirable, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.

I think the real issue is this, and please correct if I am way off, but be honest.

I believe that you feel that marriage is a religious sacrament, a joining by God, and that, at least according to your religion, God does not recognize homosexuality, or gay marriages, so any attempt to perform a gay marriage is sacrilegious. But I know many Christian gays, who believe that God honors their love and wishes for them to be married, just as he does for heterosexuals. I know not all gays are Christian, but quite a few are, and so to deny them the right to fulfill their desires to be married in God's eyes is religious intolerance. To deny gay marriage is denying marriage to many Christians. But I bet you do not think they are Christian and so their desires for marriage are wrong and should not be fulfilled, yes?

Why do you refer to marriage as a holy union, unless you believe it is sacred yourself? If it IS sacred and holy, it is made so by God and not by man's inventions and rules. Did you know that according to the Bible, God looks upon homosexuality as wrong? I'm sure they think they are Christian and whether they really are or not, does not matter. What matters is that the behavior is not approved by God. And man's approval will not change God's mind on the matter.

According to our constitution, this attitude is unconstitutional. To say that religious beliefs that allow and call for gay couples to get married are wrong is unconstitutional.

The Constitution should not be used to legitimize a lifestyle at the expense of those who want to teach the wrongness of that lifestyle their children. To change the meaning of a term, just to satisfy a segment of the population is not the job of the Constitution. The Constitution is there to restrict the power of government, to to expand it.

Yes, and so it is wrong for the government to deny marriage based on religious beliefs.

Does that mean, then, that the government can force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages since the couple may claim to be Catholic? Or the government can force it's way into an LDS temple because the gay couple is LDS? You need to consider some of the ramifications of such recklessness, Vivian.

A curious attitude. Do you believe that all marriage is the same? That secular marriage is the same as religious marriage is the same as temple marriage? They are all marriages, but in your mind are they not all different? So we use one term to define different types of marriages. Let's just expand the term to include additional types.

So would you have all the rest of us who believe marriage is a restrictive term like "doctor" or "lawyer", would you have it be US who must create a new term that is restrictive and compatible with our beliefs?

Sometimes limits are necessary, especially when people do not love. That is the purpose of spiritual law, to govern and guide those who do not yet fully love. Limits though usually indicate the presence of fear. In God's infinite love, there are no limits. This is God's intent for us - eventually infinite limitlessness. Someone like Paul did not need limits - for me all things are allowed. But not all of us are like Paul, at least not yet. It is my hope that some day all limits will be removed and God's Divine Grace will flow unobstructed.

If the God of the Bible really is, then he has rules and laws. And if you want to consider the religious side of the argument, then you need to allow those in our society who wish to maintain standards and restrictions on morality to continue to do so, and teach them to their children without the government stepping in to push something different on their children through the government controlled schools system. God's grace is conditional upon obedience and adherence to his laws.

There is no reason to disallow gay marriage except for ignorance, bigotry, prejudice - devaluing other humans and other religious beliefs. Much of our populace is afraid. And need limits set to give them a sense of protection. We will better serve them thus better seve God by removing ignorance, showing them that there is nothing to fear from gay marriage.

Shalom!

Maintaining the meaning of restrictive terms is not bigotry. I would not be a bigot if I did not want the government to change the term "lawyer" to include "doctor" so that lawyers could also practice medicine.