Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[sandie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Sandie,

While that may be true from our perspective, we do not legislate righteousness and morality.

Do you think premarital sex, adultery, or perhaps lying and gossip should be outlawed? Those things are all against God's will and could potentially harm society (in the sense of harming relationships, at least), but that doesn't mean we should have laws against it.

I feel that God supports free will, and He has proven that from the very beginning.

We are a nation of laws and if free will totally reigned nobody would dare step out their front door.
All laws governing personal behavior is legislating morality.
The question now remains what will fall under that category and what will not.

And just so you know, the things you listed, at one time in different states were outlawed, and gossip today has to fit certain criteria or it can fall under slander, which is still against the law.

Blessings.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by sandie

We are a nation of laws and if free will totally reigned nobody would dare step out their front door.
All laws governing personal behavior is legislating morality.
The question now remains what will fall under that category and what will not.

And just so you know, the things you listed, at one time in different states were outlawed, and gossip today has to fit certain criteria or it can fall under slander, which is still against the law.

Blessings.

But we don't make laws for the purpose of legislating morality/righteousness. Laws are made to protect people in society, while our governing principles demand that we leave people with as much personal freedom as possible. I agree that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't think we should imprison practicing homosexuals. "Immoral" and "criminal" are two different things, even though they may overlap at times.

How is homosexuality more of a threat to society than heterosexual adultery or promiscuity?

[sandie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

But we don't make laws for the purpose of legislating morality/righteousness. Laws are made to protect people in society, while our governing principles demand that we leave people with as much personal freedom as possible. I agree that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't think we should imprison practicing homosexuals. "Immoral" and "criminal" are two different things, even though they may overlap at times.

How is homosexuality more of a threat to society than heterosexual adultery or promiscuity?

I never said we should imprison practicing homosexuals, that's not the point I've been trying to make. I'm not succeeding in explaining it very well, apparently.
Granting marriage to same sex people, society says the behavior is acceptable, approved and a legitmate expression of a union.
God says otherwise, and no He doesn't ask us to put them in prison, but He asks us to support what He supports.
He has called the behavior an abomination, those are strong words. Yes, He hates divorce and fornication, but those behaviors are not endorced by society in the same way same sex marraige would be.
If God says a certain behavior is wrong, then it's wrong and as a Christian I can't endorce it by making it sanctioned behavior.

There's nothing personal about how I feel. I would not and do not treat a homosexual with any less regard then any other human being. God loves us all right where we are, just how we are.

The closer we line up with God's ways as an individual and a society the better off we are.
Anyway, that's how I see things.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by sandie

I never said we should imprison practicing homosexuals, that's not the point I've been trying to make. I'm not succeeding in explaining it very well, apparently.
Granting marriage to same sex people, society says the behavior is acceptable, approved and a legitmate expression of a union.
God says otherwise, and no He doesn't ask us to put them in prison, but He asks us to support what He supports.
He has called the behavior an abomination, those are strong words. Yes, He hates divorce and fornication, but those behaviors are not endorced by society in the same way same sex marraige would be.
If God says a certain behavior is wrong, then it's wrong and as a Christian I can't endorce it by making it sanctioned behavior.

There's nothing personal about how I feel. I would not and do not treat a homosexual with any less regard then any other human being. God loves us all right where we are, just how we are.

The closer we line up with God's ways as an individual and a society the better off we are.
Anyway, that's how I see things.

I see what you're saying, and you have to vote your conscience, should something like this come to a poll near you.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

But we don't make laws for the purpose of legislating morality/righteousness. Laws are made to protect people in society, while our governing principles demand that we leave people with as much personal freedom as possible. I agree that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't think we should imprison practicing homosexuals. "Immoral" and "criminal" are two different things, even though they may overlap at times.

How is homosexuality more of a threat to society than heterosexual adultery or promiscuity?

Simple. We have homosexual "advocates", those who want to justify and normalize homosexual activity. You would be hard pressed to find advocates "for" heterosexual adultery and promiscuity. Those are seen by society as aberrations, not usually desirable or normal.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

That is about as irrational as it gets. They want to control marriage. I say no.

Tell them to not try to control normal people and traditions.

Coadie, how is a gay couple controlling your marriage by having their freedoms as private citizens?

How are they controlling normal people and the traditions we hold privately?

Some churches don't see it as a sin, what about the freedom of religion?

It's more complex than you're making it sound. We have many things in our society that are legal moral choices for private individuals. I don't believe in EXPANDING government power over this area.

It's about human liberty. There was a time when we didn't allow mixed couples to marry. The GOVERNMENT has no right to meddle in our personal arrangements and private lives.

You're trying to use GOVERNMENT to control the lives of sinners... I'm wanting to restrain GOVERNMENT from meddling in the private lives and arrangements of private and free citizens.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Doesn't require much energy, just don't let them marry. Not complicated.

They way I see it, it's a loosing battle. They will never pack their bags and say, "Oh well, I guess we will just not marry." They will fight until they win. We always pick the loosing strategy on issues like this. I don't know why so many don't see that. We do best defending our own rights... not by curtailing the rights of others.

The Church survived Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, the USSR, Red China.... we act like frightened children. After America's chapter is closed in the history books... the Church will remain. We have nothing to fear.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Let's see, arguing with Coadie or . Hmm. I think I choose .

lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

The truth is most gays want deliverance. Most intimidated politically correct people can't promise a deliveror that can deliver them.

Coadie, I have a God that transcends the power of Government. You have a God who's limited to the power of Government. Therefore you restort to empowering Government to deliver God and establish righteousness.

The GOVERNMENT isn't the answer. In fact... the GOVERNMENT is part of the problem.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by sandie

So, you don't believe that men and women should be married?
We "codify" that don't we?
What other behaviors would you not "codify"?

I think that the GOVERNMENT should get out of our private lives and choices. Unless it endangers the life, liberty, and/or property of another... the GOVERNMENT (local) should simply file the papers and keep a record.

Our Founders didn't have marriage licenses. Abraham Lincoln didn't have a marriage license. In the beginning our GOVERNMENT didn't meddle in private choices unless viewed as being dangerous to another's life, liberty, and/or property.

Liberty. Remeber that concept? Personal responsibility? Remember that concept? A private life with private choices? Remember that concept?

We've become dependent on GOVERNMENT to provide and regulate everything including who we wish to choose as a life partner. I understand the moral reservations, I have them too. However, I'm MORE concerned with empowering GOVERNMENT to regulate our private lives and choices. Each side wants to use GOVERNMENT to force an agenda on the other. That's the problem. The GOVERNMENT needs to say, "Hey, we're going to allow liberty of conscience and freedom of religion." Then the GOVERNMENT needs to get it's hands out of our private lives.

I DON'T believe that GOVERNMENT is the answer. Personally, I think gay marriage will fizzle out and be proven to be just another illusion. They'll discover that marriage isn't the paradise they think it is. While you'll see a boom in gay marriages after legalization the numbers will drop significantly. Then the "gay divorces" will start pouring in. Then it will stablize as a nearly insigificant practice of a minority of primarily "religious" gay people.

From an ethical standpoint... gay or straight... if you're going to be intimate with another person, live with them, commit to life long partnership... you should consider a binding agreement. Essentially the current position in this debate is saying that gay people shouldn't live legally committed lives wherein they are legally committed to their partner. In essence, we argue against the gay lifestyle... but encourage gay promiscuity.