Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by sandie

The entire bottom line for me is what does Jesus approve of and what does He not...
Like I said to MissBrattifield, I'm probably too simple minded... but I believe the closer we all live to God's ways the better off we all are.
Basing our government on Godly principles can only help and not hurt as God has no hurtful plans mixed in with His ways.

The same logic was common during the Salem Witch Trials. God's principles teach us that a witch isn't to be allowed to live. Would executing witches be beneficial to a free society?

When it comes to "God's ways" it's all or nothing. However, if we abide by principles of liberty, we apply God's ways as individuals, and we are responsible before God as individuals.

That brings up another point. If we empower GOVERNMENT and declare that society at large must be "righteous", then we as a society will be responsible for society's sins before God. However, if we declare that this is a free society, individuals become responsible for their behavior before God. Liberty moves the GOVERNMENT out of the equation and allows individuals to stand before God according to their own free conscience. That means that God judges the individual for their sins, not an entire society for the sins of a select few.

[Aquila]

Interesting link:

Libertarians for Life
http://www.l4l.org/

[Aquila]

From a Libertarian perspective, Government does have the responsibility to protect the unborn based on these points:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My issue with abortion is that it takes the life of another individual. I do see the protection of life as a role of Government. My approach is life, liberty, and property. Abortion takes a life... for me that means Government is called upon to act to protect that life.

I wish more people (and even those who say they are Christians) felt the same way. The more people who allow that belief to dictate their actions the sooner there will be enough support to have that wretched practice outlawed....again.

I don't see that as being simple at all. In fact, I entirely agree with you. However, I don't believe it's the GOVERNMENT's job to use it's police power to force a free society to live God's way. I believe it's the role of the church to "teach" and make "disciples" of free individuals. The more we preach the Gospel and teach God's ways to more people, the more we will transform our society.

Naturally, you're right, the better job we do as Christians in making disciples the sooner these arguments will become moot.
However, I believe our laws should constrain ungodly behavior....so, guess I'm back to square one.
I'm hopeless....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by sandie

I wish more people (and even those who say they are Christians) felt the same way. The more people who allow that belief to dictate their actions the sooner there will be enough support to have that wretched practice outlawed....again.

Merely outlawing abortion will not reduce abortions. We as a society have to address the circumstances that cause women to consider abortion. However, that doesn't relieve the Government of it's responsibility to protect innocent human life. Government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Naturally, you're right, the better job we do as Christians in making disciples the sooner these arguments will become moot.
However, I believe our laws should constrain ungodly behavior....so, guess I'm back to square one.
I'm hopeless....

You're not hopeless! You're awesome and loved of God! lol

Again, my issue isn't that I am for gay marriage. My issue is that I am VERY concerned with empowering GOVERNMENT to manage our personal choices, lifestyles, religious practices, and private interests. GOVERNMENT is nearly always part of the problem... not the solution. For example, if the GOVERNMENT didn't meddle in marriage by issuing marriage licenses to begin with... the question of GOVERNMENT allowing or not allowing a form of marriage would be moot. Individual churches, institutions, and communities would decide if they wanted to recognize such marriages. If the GOVERNMENT wasn't involved, gay couples might be able to file for partner rights... but most communities would laugh at such unions. But since GOVERNMENT is the abritrator in the matter, we on the right have attempted to use GOVERNMENT to CONTROL the choices of other citizens, thus making them "victims" in the public eye. We've done more to help the gay rights movement than the gays themselves. The average opinion on the street has become, "Gay marriage, yuck. But it's a free country. Those poor gay people are being persecuted by those mean and narrow minded Christians." Our desire to use GOVERNMENT to control them has helped their cause and harmed our own.

[coadie]

Homosexuality is a mental illness. The DSM calls it an illness. In 1973, several Psychiatrists voted to remove it from the long list of mental illness in order for it to appear to be less of stigma coupled with illness and reduce "social oppression"

They are just as sick as ever. It does a number on your head when pople are told they have a mental illness.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.

This move was just like the gay marriage stunt to appease the gay activist agenda.
The rest of the world doubted these claims for 2 more decades.

America would be stupid to change laws for accomidation of a group of sick people.

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).

Can you all see some other pathology patterns?

Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control."

The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes."

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Merely outlawing abortion will not reduce abortions. We as a society have to address the circumstances that cause women to consider abortion. However, that doesn't relieve the Government of it's responsibility to protect innocent human life. Government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property.

I believe if the practice had not become lawful the numbers would have remained low. The number of illegal abortions were highly exaggerated by the founders of NARAL to help make their case.

You're not hopeless! You're awesome and loved of God! lol

Thanks for the kind words.

Again, my issue isn't that I am for gay marriage. My issue is that I am VERY concerned with empowering GOVERNMENT to manage our personal choices, lifestyles, religious practices, and private interests. GOVERNMENT is nearly always part of the problem... not the solution. For example, if the GOVERNMENT didn't meddle in marriage by issuing marriage licenses to begin with... the question of GOVERNMENT allowing or not allowing a form of marriage would be moot. Individual churches, institutions, and communities would decide if they wanted to recognize such marriages. If the GOVERNMENT wasn't involved, gay couples might be able to file for partner rights... but most communities would laugh at such unions. But since GOVERNMENT is the abritrator in the matter, we on the right have attempted to use GOVERNMENT to CONTROL the choices of other citizens, thus making them "victims" in the public eye. We've done more to help the gay rights movement than the gays themselves. The average opinion on the street has become, "Gay marriage, yuck. But it's a free country. Those poor gay people are being persecuted by those mean and narrow minded Christians." Our desire to use GOVERNMENT to control them has helped their cause and harmed our own.

That makes the most sense for your side of the argument I've ever heard.
However, if it did come on the ballot where I live my conscience would still only allow me to vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
So, there you are...only God knows how long I'll remain on square one!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

From a Libertarian perspective, Government does have the responsibility to protect the unborn based on these points:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

But the twisted gay agenda doesn't reperesent both a father and a mother.

The gay agenda is based on lies and false claims.

Born that way is a false claim

"by the power vested in me by God and the state of Ohio I now pronounce you husband and wife”.

They even get the priest to lie.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

Homosexuality is a mental illness. The DSM calls it an illness. In 1973, several Psychiatrists voted to remove it from the long list of mental illness in order for it to appear to be less of stigma coupled with illness and reduce "social oppression"

They are just as sick as ever. It does a number on your head when pople are told they have a mental illness.





This move was just like the gay marriage stunt to appease the gay activist agenda.
The rest of the world doubted these claims for 2 more decades.

America would be stupid to change laws for accomidation of a group of sick people.


Can you all see some other pathology patterns?




Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")

So now, according to Coadie, GOVERNMENT should deny people with mental illness from marrying. According to many my first wife was crazy. I wish the GOVERNMENT would have stepped up and done something when I proposed. LOL

Why didn't my NANNY GOVERNMENT protect me?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The same logic was common during the Salem Witch Trials. God's principles teach us that a witch isn't to be allowed to live. Would executing witches be beneficial to a free society?

When it comes to "God's ways" it's all or nothing. However, if we abide by principles of liberty, we apply God's ways as individuals, and we are responsible before God as individuals.

That brings up another point. If we empower GOVERNMENT and declare that society at large must be "righteous", then we as a society will be responsible for society's sins before God. However, if we declare that this is a free society, individuals become responsible for their behavior before God. Liberty moves the GOVERNMENT out of the equation and allows individuals to stand before God according to their own free conscience. That means that God judges the individual for their sins, not an entire society for the sins of a select few.

This clap trap has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You have it backwards. You want government to declare gay marrige rights as "righteous" and change the laws. You don't seem bright enough to see you make one claim and argue the opposite.

Gubment can't make gay marriage righteous.
We don't need bully judges and gubment to mess with marriage laws.

You keep mentioning God and then sin but claim not being politically correct is a sin. Where does the bible say politically correctness is the law?