How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[biblewonk]

needle-nosed moralizer's plan for how everyone else should be living their lives.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA needle-nosed moralizer. I bet you think that cannibal in Germany and his friend/meal were pretty cool.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Marriage as a social construct exists to provide for and protect the future of the society it exists within."

That's a load of crap, The government engages in regulation of marriage for revenue purposes, it government was truly interested the future of society through regulation they would A) not make it so easy to divorce, B) not tax married couples higher than non-married people, and C) not legalize the murder of fetuses (read: the future).

"That is, the society establishes an ideal environment for the raising of the next generation of citizens."

Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?

By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?

"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"

I love it!!!

It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of."

"So if you love your goat you should be allowed to marry it?"

Do I need to detail the difference between a person and a goat?

"What about if you love your two-year old?"

Of course I love my two year-old, but I don't see a whole lot of parents out there demanding the right to marry their two year-old kids...do you?

"Now you will probably respond that neither of those examples are valid because they are not mentally capable of entering into a marriage contract."

No, neither are capable of entering into ANY contracts, be they with a credit card company, or a recording company.

"What about your severely mentally disabled friend?"

Do they have legal standing to enter into contractual agreements?

"Or perhaps the guy who lives in the group home down the street who thinks he's Napoleon. What?"

Has he met his Josephine?

"They aren't capable either? What about the person who struggles with severe depression or paranoia? Still not capable?

Let me put your ridiculous "what ifs" into proper perspective, you are in effect arguing that since some people will commit violent crimes with guns, no one should have a gun.

Sound familiar to you?

[John O]

So it's OK for Jews to engage in polygamy?

I know that the rabbis today do not recognize it. I'll have to check and see if it is overruled by the rest of the torah and scriptures.

Of course this is beside the point as we were talking Bible and not Jewish scripture. (As I understand it there is another body of writings that they also follow. More of a interpretation of how the law is to be applied. Any Jewish Freepers out there who can clarify for me?)

me->"The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT)."

You->In other words, when it comes to civil rights, for instance the right not to be killed because of something the Bible says, the law supports NOT following Biblical dogma.

More correctly stated as the Bible gives the civil authority the sword to enforce biblical principle and that those civil authorities are failing to do so. In the NT even though 'homosexuals' were recognized as still being abomination there is no command to destroy them. They are recognized as being curable however.

You have to look at the entirety of scripture before you can jump to such judgements as you make.

So then, what's the objection to same sex marriages, other than "we've never done this before"

Marriage is a covenent between one man and one woman. Not between two men. (For those who refuse to recognize the spiritual aspect of life,) Physiology rules here. Marriage is designed to provide the best environment for raising children. A 'same-sex marriage' will never meet that requirement. The practice of homosexual behavior is damaging to those who do it, those who are exposed to it, and to society as a whole. It should not be allowed let alone encouraged

[Luis Gonzalez]

We are discussing marriage here, the ability to legally enter into a binding contract.

Then again, thanks for yet one more example proving that "society" has no interest in preserving the institution of marriage.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'll have to check and see if it is overruled by the rest of the torah and scriptures."

It has nothing to do with what the Rabbis think, no one can engage in polygamy.

So then, marriage laws are not necessarily based on Biblical dogma.

As such, these laws are subject to challenges by individual citizens, and should be applied equally to all citizens with no distinction to sex.

[John O]

No, it's the law protecting the specific rights of an individual.

Laws apply to individuals, not society.

And why is it important to protect the individual? because society is built on individuals. Society cannot afford to have a bunch of 'damaged' children conceived. So pains are taken to reduce the chance of that.

If society had no interest in healthy children then all incest laws would vanish instantly.

Laws do apply to individuals but laws are made for society's benefit. (I know of no law that benefits just individuals without a greater benefit to society as a whole. Can you name one?)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"More correctly stated as the Bible gives the civil authority the sword to enforce biblical principle and that those civil authorities are failing to do so."

Then again, the Bible also demands that anyone who works on Sunday be put to death...are you in favor of that?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Society cannot afford to have a bunch of 'damaged' children conceived."

Homosexuals do not conceive children, so what "damaged children" are you talking about exactly?

And does your statement mean that you support a "woman's right to choose"?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Society cannot afford to have a bunch of 'damaged' children conceived."

I get it!

You are in favor of aborting that severely mentally retarded individual you mentioned in a previous post!

You would abort that guy who believes he was Napoleon!

What about a cleft pallate?

Abort them as well?

We have the ability to identify "damaged" children before they are born...kill them all in the name of "society"?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I know of no law that benefits just individuals without a greater benefit to society as a whole. Can you name one?"

Laws protecting abortion "rights".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman."

Holy Matrimony is a covenant, civil marriage is a legal contract.

[Commie Basher]

Democrats and liberal activist judges are the only ones mandating a "moral code" on the rest of the population.

Well, no... The Left may be imposing their moral codes more successfully than some other groups. But they're hardly the only ones trying to impose morality.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Some consider bringing up children in a homosexual household causing detrimental harm to kids."

"Some" also consider that having handguns in your house can be detrimental to kids, should we outlaw guns as well?

By the way..."some" used to support miscegenation laws, did that make them right?

"Some" used to support Jim Crow laws, did that make them right?

[ArGee]

Biblical precedent does support one man married to several women in the OT.

Actually, the Bible records multiple wives, but it never supports it. David is warned not to accumulate wives or horses and Solomon pays a high price for accumulating wives. There are few other mentions of polygamy, but they are only mentioned, never condoned.

The definition of marriage as given in Genesis is one man and one woman. Jesus reaffirmed that definition as did Paul.

One can only justify polygamy via the Bible by ignoring much of the Bible. That is generally a bad way to read the Bible.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Laws apply to individuals, not society.

Laws apply to individuals in society.

Both must be maintained.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

That's a load of crap,

Luis, it would be easier to take you seriously if you could maintain the context of an argument. When John O. gives you the historical context of marriage, pointing to relatively recent changes in that context doesn't make his argument a "load of crap."

The same disease that has allowed our society to embrace queer sex also allowed our society to embrace abortion. In fact, (IIRC) many of those who argued against legalized abortion in the beginning were concerned it would lead to grosser immoralities such as homosexual marriage.

Shalom.

[John O]

That's a load of crap, The government engages in regulation of marriage for revenue purposes, it government was truly interested the future of society through regulation they would A) not make it so easy to divorce, B) not tax married couples higher than non-married people, and C) not legalize the murder of fetuses (read: the future).

Just because the last generation twisted it doesn't mean that the original purpose ceases to exist. All of the issues you mention are things we need to roll back. All of them are immoral and anti-biblical. They are all contrary to the ideals of our founding fathers. They are 'bad law'

Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?

Again bad law made by liberals. The same folk who are trying to force sexually deviant behavior down our throats

By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?

Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse. Any children raised in that house will have a far greater likely hood of being social misfits, criminals, perverts etc. They will be more sexually promiscuous (at a younger age) then children rasied in a healthy household. They will have a greater incidence of mental disease (above and beyoind SAD). The damging effects go on and on.

Now lets assume that the 'gay couple' have no kids in their own household.

The chance that a typical 'gay' person will molest a child is something like 15-30 times more likely than a healthy person would. (Remember Jesse Dirkhising. Raped, tortured and murdered by a monagomous 'gay' couple). Even if these two do not molest, they will have friends over, resulting in your children being exposed to a greater and greater number of likely molesters.

It is highly likely (if they are men) that they will break up in two years or less. Domestic violence runs rampant in the 'homosexual' lifestyle. Your children are likely to be witnesses to language and activities that you don't want them to see (and which no child should see).

The concept of fidelity doesn't really exist in the 'gay' community. your neighbors will be bringing a stream of sicknesses through your neighborhood as they sleep around.

All in all they are not a good influence on your kids.

(Of course there plenty more bad effects listed in the databse. Follow scripters link and read up on it)

me->"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"

you->It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!

I'm totally at a loss here LG. How does recognizing that sexually perverse households are not the best environment for children equate to 'it takes a village'? Especially since the 'it takes a village' person is decidely pro-homo?

[ArGee]

But they're hardly the only ones trying to impose morality.

Every law imposes a morality on the one who would choose to break the law.

Don't be confused by the fact that you think some moralities are universally recognized without religion. All laws distinguish "right" from "wrong." Without an absolute moral standard, all notions of "right" and "wrong" can change with time.

All of them.

Shalom.

[John O]

Let me put your ridiculous "what ifs" into proper perspective, you are in effect arguing that since some people will commit violent crimes with guns, no one should have a gun.

How can you possibly miss the entire point?

Let me lay it out for you clearly. People who practice homosexual behavior are mentally ill to the point where they cannot enter into contracts. They are no more able to enter the marriage contarct than a goat or a two year old.

(Disagree with or argue the facts if you must Luis but I've read some of your writing. You are much too intelligent to ignore things just to defend your point. This sort of twisting is far beneath what I've always thought of you. I'm disappointed)