Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

ho·mo·pho·bi·a   /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia

—Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

And sorry - - it's made the phobia list:

http://phobialist.com/#H-

Thanks for the help.

I use the DSM for medical definitions. DSM IV TR is now out.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders. There is a lot of new stuff and detail on phobias. The street talk for "homophobia" doesn't line up with the real medical viewpoint.
the next edition is DSM V for 2012.

If homophobia becomes a real diagnosis, the insurance coverage will pay for counseling. They cover mental illnesses.

[ManOfWord]

If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think that if we reflect on our own sin.... we'll all be thankful that God doesn't deal with cities as he did in the OT. We'll be thankful that he approaches us individually to offer his grace and mercy. And he will deal with us individually based on our receptiveness to his offer.

There is an extremely high rate of pedophilia amongst gay males. When God destroyed sodom, a large percentage of the young may have been molested.
From mayo clinic.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com.../82/4/457.full

Fifty percent to 70% of pedophiles can be diagnosed as having another paraphilia, such as frotteurism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, or sadism.7,12,25 Pedophiles are approximately 2.5 times more likely to engage in physical contact with a child than simply voyeuristic or exhibitionistic activities.7 Typically, pedophiles engage in fondling and genital manipulation more than intercourse, with the exceptions occurring in cases of incest, of pedophiles with a preference for older children or adolescents, and when children are physically coerced.5-7

Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.15

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts


Pedophilia and Bestiality

Rumours of pedophilia and child molestation by gays have also long persisted. In the study, 23% of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15 (p. 275), while 19% felt positive about sexual activity within this age group (p. 276).
http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html
Also noteworthy is that 13.5% of respondents admitted to being guilty of bestiality (p. 555). Gay publication Fag Rag ran an article entitled "Bestiality as an Act of Revolution" (p. 567). (At this point I should say that there are a number of quotes on the matter by respondents on pages 567-568, but I will not tarnish these pages by citing them, surely in St. Paul's words "too shameful to mention in secret.")

The above, of course, raises immediate questions concerning the present gay adoption debate, not to mention the question of gay priests, i.e., should such gay priests be allowed access to Sunday Schools or youth groups?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it.

I agree. Studies done by gay activists show us they want a wedding but do not want marriage.


a report by 2 gay activists.

(In the following essay, numbers in brackets indicate page numbers, which refer to The Gay Report by Karla Jay and Allen Young, Summit Books, New York, 1979).

Accusations of promiscuity had long been levelled at the gay community. As Jay and Young's research indicates, these fears were justified. According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives (p.249); 18% admitted to having had between seven and 60 such partners in the previous month alone (p. 248), and 18% to having had three or more in the previous week (p. 248). 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had did not last longer than a year (p. 340). For lesbians the average relationship lasted 38 months (p. 302).

[tstew]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.

I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it.

Which marriage privileges should not be a part of it? Defining it as a "marriage," or other legal jargon?

I can't argue for the sanctity of marriage. Wot, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Yeah, real holy!! Most people I know are divorced. A few of them divorced 2 and 3 times. Good Catholics. Lol.

I'm not for acceptance, etc. for the "community." I just think part of the argument against homo marriage is hypocrytical.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Which marriage privileges should not be a part of it? Defining it as a "marriage," or other legal jargon?

I can't argue for the sanctity of marriage. Wot, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Yeah, real holy!! Most people I know are divorced. A few of them divorced 2 and 3 times. Good Catholics. Lol.

I'm not for acceptance, etc. for the "community." I just think part of the argument against homo marriage is hypocrytical.

Much of the folks doing the arguments shack up and don't marry. The Netherlands and liberal northern Euro countries have very high rate of un-married and co habitation. That creates a low potential for divorce.

[Ferd]

First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.

With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.

So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.

If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?

Is there one?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.

Originally Posted by tstew

I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...

I agree. Marriage is primarily a religious institution/union, therefore the government shouldn't even be determining who can enter into the covenant.

To that end, anyone wanting to enter into a civil union for tax benefits should be able to do so...IMO. That should be distinct from church-sanctioned marriages.

I don't feel threatened by two gay men wanting to share a checkbook and household expenses. That's the least of my worries, actually, in reference to homosexuality.

This is another case where Christians becoming political activists is contradictory and detrimental to sharing the Gospel.

We would be better off campaigning for the government to release control of marriage altogether, and create civil unions for tax purposes only. Those who want to play house and share expenses can do so. The sanctity of marriage then remains intact because the only ones entering into such a covenant will be those who (presumably) respect the tradition and sober nature of the commitment.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Ferd

First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.

With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.

So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.

If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?

Is there one?

I don't think there is, and I agree with the libertarian view as well. The church needs to be in charge of who can enter into a marriage covenant, and the government needs to grant licenses to those who want to share homes, incomes, expenses and tax obligations, separate from any religious covenant.

Technically, it would also allow couples to defy government involvement altogether, and be married without the consent of the government, unless they decide they want or need the financial benefits.