How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

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

[John O]

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

It has everything to do with what the rabbis think when you're talking about Jewish law.

If you're no longer talking about Jewish scripture and law than say so.

If you're talking about American constitutional law then no one can engage in 'same sex' marriage.

If you say why can't 'same sex' marriage be allowed then you have to say why intergenerational marriage or group marriage or interspecies marriage or incestual marriage or platonic but interested in finacial advantage marriage shouldn't be allowed also. The pedofiles are already following in the footsteps of the 'homosexuals' in trying to get their agenda approved.

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

Disagree. You haven't proved this. The law in this country states that one man can marry one woman. Pure biblical precept

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

The laws are applied equally to all citizens without regard to sex. Every man is allowed to marry a woman and every woman is allowed to marry a man. No discrimination whatsoever.

[John O]

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

And yet again read the entirety of scripture before you jump to conclusions. The apostles worked in Jesus' presence on the sabbath and he wasn't to concerned about it. Look it up and read what He said. It'll do you good. (also the bible says the sabbath, never says Sunday, The Jewish sabbath is Saturday)

[John O]

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

In this particular sub thread of the discussion you were talking about a brother marrying a sister. Please try to keep up with your own arguments

(Are you OK? I remember you as much quicker than this back during the Elian days. What happened?)

[John O]

I get it!

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

Notice that I didn't say born as that would lead to the argument you made. Once the child is conceived it must be protected. We can prevent a damaged child from being conceived but we cannot prevent a damaged child from being born. We don't have that right.

[Quick1]

The bible is also very clear that adulterers should be put to death. Do you advocate that?

[John O]

Laws protecting abortion "rights".

Good job. Excellent example of a law that benefits the individual at the cost of society. I think we'd both agree that it is bad law and needs to be rolled back.

Abortion harms everyone it touches (Kind of like homosexuality and almost every other liberal idea)

Now can you think of a good law that benefits the individual without a greater or equal benefit to society?

[John O]

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

In this country they are generally considered the same thing.

[John O]

Actually, the Bible records multiple wives, but it never supports it.

Excellent point ArGee. I was thinking how David was a man after God's own heart and yet had many wives. I guess that falls into God's permitting rather than approving.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Sure are a lot of legal reasons for the government to be involved in determining what is a marriage and what is not.

You've listed a lot of peripheral issues that have arisen around marriage. But I don't think any of them are telling in terms of the criteria that should be used. There is already a perfectly sound definition - union of one man and one woman.

I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.

[John O]

The bible is also very clear that adulterers should be put to death. Do you advocate that?

And again, read the entirety of scripture before jumping to conclusions.

Jesus spoke to the woman at the well (who was living in sin) without sentencing her to death. Jesus spoke to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery without sentencing her to death. I guess He sees forgiveness and restoration as better then destruction. Good rule to follow.

What I would support is that the adulterer (or adulteress) lose everything in the ensuing divorce. Children, house, cars, all goods or finances belonging to the marriage. If you break the marriage covenant you lose everything (if the wronged spouse chooses not to forgive you)

Divorce should be in cases of adultery or provable abuse only.

[NutCrackerBoy]

People who practice homosexual behavior are mentally ill to the point where they cannot enter into contracts.

That is profoundly ridiculous. Were anyone to exclude a practicing homosexual from entering into contracts on that basis, they would rightly be thrown into prison.

[gcruse]

I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.

Agreed.  The legal structures should be available to every adult.  That's why civil unions make sense.  Save marriage for the church if you must, but secular unions should be the default.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Please don't say "Agreed." when you disagree. You know perfectly well I was not advocating that the legal structures or financial benefits of marriage should be made available to gay couples, whether or not that is done under an "alias" (civil unions).

[breakem]

I really don't know much about whether or not government should be involved in marraige, but since it is I think you should let the taxpayer marry whom they want to marry. As you may see on this thread the definition of marraige has changed over time. I think there may be societal benefits to gay marraige in terms of health and stability etc. I certainly don't think my marraige or anyone else's is under attack because the women down the street got married. My marraige is strong and doesn't need defending from homosexuals.

[breakem]

regarding 156 I explained that earlier. The stats cannot be accurate since the police and child social workers say much pedophilia within families isn't reported.

Now it may well be that homosexuals do more of this. My follow-up point was "what is the practical application of this information?" Is my daughter safer with a hetero or homo male teacher? Why do we paint all people in this category with this brush instead of saying people have individual rights and should be treated as individuals? Why do we paint everyone with the extremist label of the most extreme within their category? We don't do that with freepers do we? Does that mean we say all blacks are murders wince they commit more per capita than other groups.

[breakem]

Your comments about the two women are false. Since they married in their church they are related. A marraige that involves a woman is always capable of producing a child. Modern science and all that. Their child is proof.

[breakem]

"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."

I just read this. Are you serious or is this just sarcasm?

[mcg1969]

I guess He sees forgiveness and restoration as better then destruction. Good rule to follow.

Of course, as God, His life is ours to take or save.

Divorce should be in cases of adultery or provable abuse only.

Ah, repealing no-fault divorce. I agree with that. The last thing we should be doing is weakening the institution of heterosexual marriage; we should instead be restoring its standards of fidelity and permanence.

[mcg1969]

Get back to me when the child is actually biologically related to both mothers. (And I'm talking nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial. I've heard about that weird experiment where a child was born with one mother's mitochondrial DNA and one mother's nuclear DNA. But mitochondrial DNA does not fundamentally determine the physical nature of the person.)

Although in truth I personally don't use the bioligical argument when defending my stance against gay marriage, so I'm just nitpicking.

[mcg1969]

Luis, I've waded through this whole thread and haven't quite figured out your position. While I understand you support the notion of gay marriage, I'm not sure where you would move the government "line" to. Would you please illumnate that for me?

Must there be exactly two persons in a marriage?
Must they be over a certain age?
Must they be a certain genetic "distance" apart? (i.e., can they be brother and sister? Mother and son? First cousins? Second cousins?)

And can you perhaps summarize your basis for imposing these restrictions on marriage? In other words, why shouldn't the full legal status of marriage (even if we call it civil unions) be extended to any mutually consenting group of persons who wishes to acquire it?

Thanks.