@Pops --"the exception should determine the rule?"Nope. I'm saying that you can't logically ban gay marriages based on
the excuse of childlessness without also banning marriages of straight infertile
couples. They are identical in this respect."politics can
corrupt hard science"Find some reputable groups that oppose gay
marriage -- then we can talk.These are professionals who work with
children every day. They do research and also work with children in their real
lives. They include pediatricians, family practitioners, child and adolescent
psychiatrists, social workers, and more. These are the folks down in
the trenches with the kids."dysfunctional fatherless
homes"We all know that unstable, single-parent homes aren't
as good for children as stable, two-parent homes.Guess what -- gay
marriage is GOOD for kids, because it increases the stability of two-parent
families that are ALREADY raising hundreds of thousands of kids -- and just
happen to be led by gay couples."homosexual "marriage"
... offers nothing to the state."One More Time -- homosexual
marriages offer just as much to the state as any infertile marriages. You can
continue to ignore that fact if you wish, but it's still a fact.
@amazondoc - so are you saying the exception should determine the rule?
That's a departure from reason.And it really isn't
surprising that "multiple groups" of "experts" don't find
value in gender roles. I've seen up close and personal how politics can
corrupt hard science, and it's an order of magnitude easier to corrupt the
social sciences. I've also seen how dysfunctional fatherless homes are -
look no further than many of our inner-city subcultures. I'll put my money
on hundreds of years of human experience, and my own personal experience, on
this one.It is in the state's interest to promote heterosexual
marriage by offering exclusive benefits to them because as a rule that's
where the vast majority of future citizens come from. The state has no interest
in homosexual "marriage" because it offers nothing to the state. If
homosexual partners wish to form civil unions, fine, but the legal obligation
logically rests with them and not with the state.
@Pops --"From the perspective of the state, marriage is about
children. Gay unions do not produce children." Gay couples
produce children just as easily as any other infertile couples do. More than
100,000 gay couples are already raising children in this country. It is
estimated that roughly 6 MILLION US children are living with at least one gay
parent."Gay couples cannot provide appropriate gender roles for
children."Multiple groups of professional child-development
experts agree that children raised by gay couples have no significant
disadvantages compared to children raised by straight couples. They all
*support* gay marriage.Remember, *every* family is different.
Educated families are different from uneducated ones; rich families are
different from poor ones; Texas families are different from Vermont ones. Each
family will provide different types of role models for their kids -- but we
don't outlaw marriages among these groups just because they are different.
The title should read, " the government has no place in marriage since
it's a religious practice."Face it, people only get married
because of it's religious influence in our society. It's so ingrained
people don't think of it but it's true. Many people choose to live
together without the ceremony or the town hall. Why should a person need a
license from the government for such a basic thing. May as well be a licence to
breath.Just get government out of the business of charging us to
say, "yes you can live together all your lives if you want." [Stamp
sound, cha-ching! ]All I need is my church, not an old corrupt
lawyer in a robe to tell me and charge me for giving me "permission".
I'm okay with taking religion out of the gay marriage debate, but I'm
not okay with taking common sense or reason out of the debate. From the
perspective of the state, marriage is about children. Gay unions do not produce
children. Gay couples cannot provide appropriate gender roles for children. Thus
there is no reason for the state to offer incentives for gay couples to join in
(secular) matrimony. To do so only waters down what little incentive there is
left for heterosexual couples to make a legally-binding commitment to raise the
next generation of citizens.
"I think GOVERNMENT should have no role in Marriage."Are you
sure?Same sex marriage would have been around for a long long time
by now if you got your wish.History has shown that anyone can start
a religion. All you have to do is convince a bunch of people to follow you.Be careful what you wish for..
Scott,I think the exact opposite of your insistance that religion should
have no part in Marriage. I think GOVERNMENT should have no role in
Marriage.You bolster your opinion by attacking the Bible. But
religious role in "Marriage" pre-dates any written Bible (Adam and Eve
were married, and there was no secular government at the time). And marriage
is not just a Christian concept (Marriage and religion's role in marriage
is part of every religion I know of).Religion and Marriage have gone
hand-in-hand since the begining of human records. So what makes you so
important that that connection should now be completely severed... just because
you say so?If anything GOVERNMENT is the new-commer to Marriage.
You didn't used to need a government marriage license to marry... you just
needed your choice of clergy to perform and record the ceremony. The medling
of GOVERNMENT into the Marriage covenant is a relatively recent development
(historically speaking). What we refer to as "Marriage" for most
Europeans and Americans today has become mostly a Government institution (not a
religious one) newly RE-Invented by the government worshipping secularists.
The Bible is not a good resource for any debate because, as we see in many posts
here, people can twist its words to justify anything they want. But
religious beliefs are just as valid as any other belief. Beliefs are the same as
facts to the person who believes them. In a free country, a person can approve
of or disapprove of whatever they want. I am not obligated to approve of gay
behavior. Others are not obligated to disapprove of gay behavior. Currently,
marriage laws support this view and advocate freedom.Gay marriage
advocates however, do not support this view, or advocate freedom. They want
everyone to be obligated to approve of gay behavior regardless of their beliefs.
They want the government to ignore the beliefs of many religious people and make
laws establishing universal support for and approval of gay behavior.
@Tulip --"People are not "born" gay."The
LDS leadership acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice. Specifically:
"individuals do not choose to have such attractions".Additionally, Jesus himself said that some people are born "eunuchs".
According to experts that term was used broadly in Biblical times, referring
generally to men who had no relations with women. Specifically: "For there
are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made
eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept
it.” (Matthew 19:12) Eunuchs who are "made" are
castrated; those who "live like" eunuchs are celibate priests; and
eunuchs who "were born that way" are widely interpreted to be
homosexuals.@HaHaHaHa --"That way no one else is
affected, or is required to adaqpt."Nobody is "required to
adapt" for any gay marriage. Nobody is forcing churches to perform gay
marriages."it doesn't involve the state at all."Legal marriage always involves the state. Church marriages that do *not*
include a marriage certificate aren't recognized by any legal authorities.
"People are not "born" gay. Just because that's the political
mantra does not make it true."And the Religious mantra of
"it is a choice" also does not make it true.Logic tells me
that this is not a choice that intelligent people make. Why choose a lifestyle
that is ostracized in society and that many hide from the public.Why
would anyone "choose" that path? It defies logic.I believe
that the religious reject the "born that way" argument so they
don't have to struggle with the thought that God made them that way.
@Mountanman 4:19 p.m. April 28, 2013@ Furry. Can you prove there is
no God? Just because you have failed to observe the multitude of evidences for
the existence of God, does not mean millions of other people have not. Absence
of evidence for you is not evidence of absence for millions of other people.
Failure to observe is the common denominator for people who have never seen the
evidences for the existence of God.---------------------Read what I said again. I found plenty of things that convinced me of
God's existence. I am a strong, obsesrvant Latter-Day Saint. Those things
are not, however, the hard, articuable, demonstrable FACTS that win an argument.
I'm asking you to provide the FACTS to support your position. If you
cannot provide the FACTS, then your statements should say "I believe"
instead of stating your position as fact. So, once again, if you have the facts
to prove God's existence, provide them. Prove your case.
HaHaHaHaOthello, WAYou are totally correct. I do not propose
to tell any religion who they should marry or whose marriages they accept as
valid. All that falls under religious freedom. Nor have I proposed
to tell citizens who they can and cannot make a legal contract with. Truly what
I propose is freedom for all. I also promote respectful treatment
for those who believe differently than oneself. But I guess that is a Christian
value, so I can't really expect that from everyone else.
@RanchYou have no idea whether I have knowledge to the contrary. As to my
opinion, you have every right to reject it as I do yours.
@Tulip;Please give me the date and time you CHOSE to be
heterosexual. I am gay and I have always been gay, I've never made the
choice to be gay and many years ago would have changed it if I could. Your
opinion aside, you have no knowledge to the contrary.
@higv;Same sex marriage isn't going to affect churches.
Bigotry is also a moral issue, do you think your god is going to approve of
bigotry?@Mountanman;Your god didn't
"invent" anything. He's nothing more than a myth.@Pat;The bible also condemns hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to deny
certain citizens the same privileges you, yourself partake of because you
disagree with them.@George FIf Jesus fulfilled the law,
did he fulfill the entire law or only a part of it? How do you know which part
was not fulfilled since Jesus never said "I'm here to fulfill part of
the law". Paul spoke out of his traditional biases. How do we know he was
speaking for Jesus? You don't. And if Jesus didn't fulfill the entire
law then he may not have fulfilled the part about eating shellfish either, or
the part about punishing the bad child.
@amazondocPeople are not "born" gay. Just because that's the
political mantra does not make it true.
"Quite a few Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian religions,
are already quite happy to marry gay people in religious ceremonies. The state
hasn't forced anything on them at all."@ amazon I
don't think 24-7 has proposed anything contrary to this. If a church or
religion wants to promote gayness within themselves, more power to them. That
way no one else is affected, or is required to adaqpt. As 24-7 stated, it
doesn't involve the state at all. He has a great proposal! The state
doesn't needt to take over these area that are religion based. The state
needs to get out, and just apply whatever contracts are enacted between parties.
You've proclaimed yourself "Mr Debate", why should this be an
@George F --"Neither is the man without the woman...(1 Cor
11:11)"This chapter actually says it's a sin for a woman to
pray with her head uncovered, and that women are inferior to men. Do you
therefore expect women to take up the hijab? This says nothing about
sexuality."Their women did change the natural use.... (Rom
1:26-27)"1. Paul also forbade women to speak in church and
thought they were inferior to men. (1 Cor 14:34)2. Paul also supported
slavery (Col 3:22).Do you really agree with *everything* Paul
said?If you want to listen to Paul, try this:"Let no
debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for
whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.The commandments,
“You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,”
“You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and
whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”Love does no harm to a
neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans
So just how does God arbitrate a divorce settlement? And tell us mountainman
just who created God, or did God just evolve sort of like the ameboeba?
Amazon com - to answer the question about the New TestamentNeither
is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord (1 Cor
11:11)Their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature; and likewise also the men eaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly (Rom 1:26-27)
@Christian 24-7 --"The state has no business defining the
religious union between a man and a woman as anything"Quite a
few Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian religions, are already
quite happy to marry gay people in religious ceremonies. The state hasn't
forced anything on them at all.Why should your particular religious
vision of marriage win over theirs?"Change the words so you
don't spit in the face of citizens who are religious."I
think you mean "citizens who are religious in the very same particular way
that I am religious". Many religious people *support* gay
marriage. Your particular religion isn't any more important than theirs
is.This is one of the reasons why religion doesn't belong in
this debate. Every religious group, and even every individual within each group,
will have their own personal interpretation of religion. Which one gets to win?
None of them should.@Mountanman --"Can you prove
there is no God?"It's impossible to prove a negative.
That's why the person who makes a positive claim -- e.g. "There is a
God" -- is the person who bears the burden of proof in any debate.
"Religion has no place in the marriage debate." Of course if I
was gay or wanted to push the gay agenda, I would try to say the same thing, or
stretch the truth enough to make the same argument!
@higvWhat the letter writer means is that our laws have to be secular
otherwise it'd be the establishment of a religion, which is why Sharia law
would be unconstitutional for instance. Religious people and churches can argue
on behalf of laws but there needs to be a non-religious reason for the law.
That's why the Prop 8 supporting lawyers aren't invoking God in their
Separation of church and state is exactly what applies here. The state has no
business defining the religious union between a man and a woman as anything,
including as anything else. The state should return marriage to the religions,
where is originated, and define their benefits to whatever unions they decide
are for the betterment of society. Call those unions anything suitable, but
don't use a religious term, like baptism, communion, ordination, or
marriage. Change the words so you don't spit in the face of
citizens who are religious. How hard is that?However, it is total
discrimination to say that anyone religious has no right to speak their values,
as members of society decide what the collective values will be. The voices of
those who go to church are as valid as those of the atheists.
@Pat --"The Bible condemns homosexual behavior."Religious arguments against homosexuality most often rely on quotes from the
Old Testament. But, as someone pointed out to me in another thread, Old
Testament laws were basically superseded and replaced by the principles taught
in the New Testament (for example, Hebrews 8:6-13).And guess what?
Jesus himself never said a single word against homosexuals. In fact, one
statement he *did* make -- Matthew 19:12 -- is often interpreted as indicating
that Jesus both recognizes and accepts the fact that homosexuals are born that
way.@DougS --"why don't we just abolish
marriage in favor of social contracts..."Marriage *is* a social
contract -- specifically, a legal one. Atheists (and many other folks) get
married just fine every day without the help of any church proceedings. "Gay marriage is not for the purpose of having children...."More than 100,000 gay couples are already raising children in this
country. Roughly 6 **million** children in this country are apparently living
with at least one gay parent.Marriage helps children. It
doesn't matter whether or not children are the specific reason for gays to
marry -- the effect is still beneficial for those kids.
@ Furry. Can you prove there is no God? Just because you have failed to observe
the multitude of evidences for the existence of God, does not mean millions of
other people have not. Absence of evidence for you is not evidence of absence
for millions of other people. Failure to observe is the common denominator for
people who have never seen the evidences for the existence of God.
With respect, I do believe that faith and even religious institutions have a
role to play in this debate and, indeed, in all social policy. That said, the
debate can't simply be, "God said it, and that ends it"-- because
if that's the standard, then I can assure you that you'll find LOTS of
differences in terms of belief of who God is, what He said and when and where,
and even what it meant. And under our system, no one belief has a
lock on the truth when it comes to social policy. For that, you need to make
arguments, both legal and social. I am a gay man. I am a person of
faith. My faith (Reform Judaism) informs my belief that social justice should
guide us and that excluding good, innocent and moral gay couple from signing
legally binding civil contracts denies them equal protection under the law, and
is unjust as well, and should be remedied. Your faith disagrees?
That's fine, of course. But you need to make the case in civil terms, not
simply based on faith or faith traditions.
Oh, I know what you mean! Wow, can you imagine what a different place this
country would be today if people like the Quakers had just kept their mouths
shut about slavery? So, they had a religious thing against it. What gave them
the right to be all judgmental? And, then, a hundred years later, along comes
the Reverend Martin Luther King getting all uppity and quoting spirituals in
public places. Sure, I've heard that the biggest proof that one
side of debate knows they haven't got a leg to stand on is that they try to
silence the opposition rather than refute their arguments. Some people might
think that's what this letter is about. But, hey, think how much shorter
any public debate becomes once you tell one side they're not allowed to
"why don't we just abolish marriage in favor of social contracts which
may or may not be recognized by anyone else"Isn't that what
is required for marriage? Churches are not required. Religion is not required.
But, legal marriage does require a government document.Try
getting married without a marriage license and see how "recognized" that
marriage really is.I think what the writer is saying is that the
Govt document should not be affected by religion. Once the government document
is obtained, one can more forward with any or no, religious ceremony of their
@Mountanman 8:55 a.m. April 28, 2013Marriage is a completely
religious doctrine! God invented it! It may seem quaint and politically correct
to try to separate religion and marriage but it can not be done without ignoring
either God or the purpose of marriage. Good luck to any society who attempts
either!----------------------Okay -- it's "put
up or shut up" time. Prove, with hard, articuable and deomonstable facts,
the exitence of God.I strongly believe, to the point of fact for me,
that God is real and eternal. BUT I also realize that I won't be able to
actually prove His eistence until I get to the other side of the veil and see
what's there. Therefore, while I give testimony of my absolute belief, I
don't use that belief as proof in an argument -- two different things. If
you are going to assert the existence of God as fact in an argument, prove it.
For some of us religion has everything to do with the marriage debate. The
Bible is a divine book assembled by inspired people. The Bible condemns
homosexual behavior. And if you want to use President Jefferson's quote to
the Danbury Baptists, look at it in its entirety and then follow up with Supreme
Court decisions on Establishment Clause and Freedom of Religion.
If marriage is not based on morality, religion, politics, or economics, why
don't we just abolish marriage in favor of social contracts which may or
may not be recognized by anyone else. Since the number of single parents is
increasing, please don't use children as the reason for marriage.. they
don't. Gay marriage is not for the purpose of having children since such
is impossible without outside help. Please pople, examine your motives before
attacking a practice that has existed for thousands of years...
Marriage is a completely religious doctrine! God invented it! It may seem quaint
and politically correct to try to separate religion and marriage but it can not
be done without ignoring either God or the purpose of marriage. Good luck to any
society who attempts either!
By all means then shouldn't the State stay out of "regulating" what
churches can and cannot do?
Marriage is a contract between the participants and regulated by the government.
Mythology has no more place in it than it does in your mortgage agreement.
Yes, I think people who are referring to the Bible to argue in support of
traditional marriage are misguided. They could come up with better reasons
without having to resort to the Bible. After all, strengthening rather than
redefining marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty. (But I digress.)Anyhow, here is a question. The Bible says that we need to be kind to
strangers ("for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"). It also says
that the laws should the same way to the politically powerful as to the
politically weak. For that reason, I have very serious qualms about
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. My position is based on the
Bible.Why is using the Bible to support traditional marriage out of
place, but it isn't out of place to condemn Israel or to promote
immigration reform?Perhaps the Bible is a cultural standard which
resonates with many people and that is why it belongs in discussions of public
Churches do have a right to speak out on moral issues. Issues like marriage
which effects churches. Do only unbelievers have a right to speak out on issues
concerning morality? Use the church agrees to silence churches on issues that