Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

No one commented or answered my question. What non biblical reason is there to ban gay marriage? Can we come up with one without mentioning one religious word? Until then, gay marriage wont be struck down. At least abortion is murder.

Maybe the fact that Marriage is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of having and raising children for the establishment of a healthy, stable and growing society.

It always has been.

Even in Rome and other ancient cultures men were married to women to establish families while cavorting about with male servants purely for sex

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I firmly believe that. And… I don’t care if that bothers you bro. lol

Sadly this is apparent.

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. And no matter how much WE might disagree… there are interpretations of the Scripture that wouldn’t prohibit all forms of homosexuality. Essentially, you’re using GOVERNMENT to force your interpretation. If you truly believe that the STATE shouldn’t be used to enforce a single interpretation of Scripture over others… WHY are you doing so??? Now your position is hypocritical. And THIS makes my case that even according to your own words… using the STATE to enforce a single interpretation of Scripture does violence to the Constitution. You made my case.

Again the hyperbole. The fact is this is the year 2013 and the govt. has evolved to what it is today. Stomp your feet all you want to but the reality is the govt. has taken authority over marriages.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Presupposition alert!!! Who said I must “vote my values”??? I personally value house churching and have a strong dislike for institutional churches. Should I vote my values and try to dismantle laws that support institutional churches based on my religious convictions??? Should Catholics only vote for politicians and measures that would outlaw second and third marriages??? You ASSUME every Christian thinks like YOU. And we don’t. You don’t represent us. And no matter how noble and true you think your interpretations of the Scriptures are… me and millions of others will most likely have disagreements with you. So you have no right trying to REPRESENT me or my faith.

Here’s the deal… my values are indeed that… MY values. However, one of my VALUES is to protect individual liberty. When I was in the Army I served to protect the freedom of every Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Satanist, etc. to freely practice their religion. I stand for and vote for liberty. However, my values govern my PERSONAL lifestyle. According to your logic… I should stand firmly against the freedom to practice soul damning religions… thereby I should vote against religious liberty. Your position is again… antithesis to the Constitutional vision of liberty. Don’t you realize that when I was in the Army, I was willing to DIE to protect a Satanists freedom of religion??? I value liberty. And within that liberty I practice Christianity. But I will not use my Christianity as an EXCUSE to subvert the liberties of another.

With regards to homosexual marriages all Christians do think like me. That is not an assumption. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and then argues for an abomination (homosexual marriage) is Antichrist and not Christian. This whole "logic" is nothing more than a straw man masquerading as logic. Instead of dealing with homosexual marriage you have run off on tangents to include the time you spent in the Army. The purpose of this thread is to deal with homosexual marriage hence the title of the thread "Legality of Same Sex Marriage". Now if you want to start a thread where you berate others for being "Statists" because they disagree with you then please do so.

The fact remains people always vote their values. A Christian uses the Bible as their value system and should vote accordingly. Thankfully the pulpit is not silent.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No… I’m all for silencing political dolts who would use religion to manipulate Christians into voting for n agenda that endangers the personal liberties of all Americans.

Now we see the "attack" against those who disagree politically with you. You would silence the freedom of speech and religion by telling preachers they have no right to preach righteousness and stand against homosexual marriages because that is not "libertarian" enough for you. This after lecturing about freedoms and your service and pledge of death to uphold those freedoms you now admit to denying others. Hmmm... So much for "tolerance"...

Originally Posted by Aquila

Please note… the staunchest conservative Christians of the day were FOR SLAVERY. It was those who were branded “liberals” who were inspired by their Christianity to believe that every man should be FREE. Even non-Christian slaves. If you don’t believe me… go back and research how often Lincoln was branded a liberal for standing for emancipation.

Another straw man that does nothing to advance the discussion, just another tangent. The fact remains that it was many Christians that stood up against the institution of slavery that helped pave the way for the dismantling of that institution. Likewise, it does not matter how many "libertarians" argue against preachers for taking a stand against homosexual marriages we will press on and stand before God with a clear conscious. We have a right as citizens to voice our opinions and vote with our values and homosexual marriages are bad because they:
Are a biological perversion
Are detrimental to child development (see the Regnerus study and sooo many others)
Are a slippery slope for every other abomination
Are a direct violation of scripture

Originally Posted by Aquila

You don’t agree with that. You’d take away a free man’s liberty to do as he wishes privately in his own life, according to his own convictions, and his own conscience, in accordance to his own faith. Why do I know this??? Because if a gay man attending an Episcopal church wanted to marry and live with his companion you’d want to use the power of the STATE to crush his liberty to do so. Now, I’m not saying God would approve of his decision to marry another man. What I’m saying is… he has the right to go to Hell if living according to his conscience should so send him there. Liberty.

Again I ask where there is a bill to remove the authority of the state from the marriage process. The conspicuous absence of such a bill renders your whole logic as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This is nothing more than a Red Herring since the govt. already has the power to govern marriages.

You say I am arguing for the govt. to take control of something it already has the authority and power to control. Newsflash... The govt. took control of marriage a long time ago. I am defending the natural status of marriage to be between one man and one woman and stopping the govt. from imposing an abomination upon this country and attempting to force Christians to accept the abomination or face persecution.
Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I’m hearing violins. Lol “But what about the CHILDREN???” Typical political ploy. What about all the children in households without health insurance??? I guess GOVERNMENT should step in and provide it for the family??? The argument is old and worn out. What about them??? I know… what about… LIBERTY???

If you are hearing violins you should change your radio station if you don't like it. What about the children is not a "typical political ploy". It is the truth. Marriages figure greatly in the adoption process. There is even now a legal case where a lesbian couple received donor fluid (pg rating here) to conceive a child. This "couple" has now asked for govt. assistance and the govt. is going after the donor for child support.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...-child-support

The family unit, this includes children, is the back bone of society. I am defending that back bone and you apparently don't care about it. Apparently you do not care what the best thing for children is (after all you are hearing violins...). The health insurance and all the other straw men arguments have nothing to do with the purpose of this thread - homosexual marriage. Children are an inescapable byproduct of homosexual marriages because marriage figures prominently when adopting children. Therefore, what is best for children is an important concept when considering the ramifications of homosexual marriage.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not if the biological parents are abusive idiots or crack heads. Sometimes a child would do “better” in a “loving home”, even if the parent were gay. So… do we ban family units wherein the biological parents aren’t together??? Get real. My mom divorced my drunken, abusive, dead beat father. And I was BETTER for it. And if my mother were to have been a lesbian… that’s her business… NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. Don’t you see that???

Here we have an example a logical fallacy known as the appeal to emotion. The personal reference is made to appeal to the emotion of the reader to shift focus from the facts of the case to the emotion. Where I am sorry to hear your child hood was bad you are not the only one.

We could use case studies from all the dysfunctional families and set them up in classes. We could divide them into categories such as children raised by mom only, children raised by father only, children raised on their own, children raised with a stepmother, children raised with a stepfather etc etc. In each case, provided there is a large sample taken, we can find children that turned out "okay". However, that is not the question. The question is what is best for children and study after study has proven that overall children have the best chance of success when raised by their biological parents.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And??? So what? It means NOTHING. Why? It’s not the GOVERNMENT’S JOB. Consider this…study after study, backed up by precious science, has proven that heart disease is America’s leading killer (not gay marriage). And it is largely such a great problem due to obesity. And obesity is largely caused by people eating too much fast foods and foods loaded with saturated fat. To save the CHILDREN and all these FAT little families… should the GOVERNMENT step in and regulate the fast food industry??? Should the GOVERNMENT begin regulating diet??? Should parents have to report the caloric intake of their children to some GOVERNMENT bureaucrat because a healthy diet is the best model for a child’s health??? NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Why??? BECAUSE it’s NOT the GOVERNMENT’S job to regulate what we eat. No matter how HEALTHY it would be for us… or “the children”. IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB. The GOVERNMENT should insure that we do not endanger another citizen’s life, liberty, or property… and protect the boarders. It’s not the GOVERNMENT’S job to regulate marriage, diet, family structure, or Halloween candy! LOL

Another red Herring/Straw man. The govt. already has taken the authority over marriage. This is not about whether the govt. has the authority or should have the authority - the govt. has taken that authority to itself and is attempting to force down the throats of every citizen an abomination. I and others like me are standing against that onslaught and others like you are arguing against those standing for righteousness. The best chance children have of liberty is to be raised by their biological parents yet you stand against those who are standing up for that system making yourself an enemy of the family.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Besides… half those womanizing, power mad, buffoons in Washington are in their second or third marriages. And you think THEY have the right to tell US what family structure is best and enforce some regulation to make it so??? What planet are you from??? Lol

Let's see... I am from planet earth.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, while I agree with you that a home with two biological parents is best for a child… IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS. That’s for churches, mosques, synagogues, charities, counseling centers, and other PRIVATE entities to address as families turn to them voluntarily.

Wow... All these Red Herrings, Straw men and hyperbole and we finally get to where the rubber meets the road. Well sort of... Children being raised by biological parents is the best thing - one thing we agree on. Now whether you like it or not the govt. has taken the power of overseeing marriages. My argument is neither for or against that. it is mitigating the power it has already assumed. Therefore, we can choose to stick our head in the sand or we can seek to influence the govt. by standing for this. Homosexual marriage will have an impact if/when legalized on the adoptive process.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Gays aren’t going away. They are also tax paying citizens. Thereby, they are entitled to equal representation under the law. And the law states that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, etc. Why? Because all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They will NEVER cease to demand equal representation under the law without discrimination on the basis of gender. Therefore, I assure you that they will win if not to just get them to shut up.

But all is not lost! Why? Because while we’ll see an immediate boom in gay marriage… we’ll soon see a boom in “gay divorces”. They will soon discover that marriage isn’t the panacea they thought it was. And given the promiscuous nature of so many homosexuals… the number of gay marriages will drop drastically. And that’s not the best part. The best part will be…televised divorce court! LOL Yes, it will make for hilarious television!!! LOL! In the end… they’ll just be a spectacle to be laughed at.

Whether they will be a spectacle or not remains to be seen. Society will suffer because children will suffer. That is not something to laugh at nor take lightly. As I recall the Regnerus study showed that children raised in homosexual environments were more likely to "experiment" - to be more promiscuous. Also, they had higher incidents of drug abuse and overall were shown to have a lower prospect of success than children raised by their biological parents. Homosexual marriage is not just about two people getting married. It is about redefining the family.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wrong. The Christians behind the culture war in America are Reconstructionists. Read up on them. They want to enforce Biblical law in the United States.

As you’ve already noted… your version of “Christian family law” would affect adoptions, tax codes, family structures, domestic partner benefits, insurance benefits, etc. So, the “Christian family law” you espouse is just as far reaching as Sharia law would be. I come from a home wherein I was raised by an awesome single mom. The America you would build wouldn’t represent me. In addition, I’m a divorcee with a son who is rebuilding my life with a young lady (who is also a divorcee with a daughter). So, we’re building a blended family. Your vision for America wouldn’t represent my family at all. So get over yourself and your supposed “social righteousness”. In addition… get a vision of what true American liberty is about down here in this broken world. The Christian utopia you envision is a pipe dream. The best thing you can do is protect and defend the individual liberties of ALL people.

Where to begin?

Same red Herring hyperbole. Here is a reality check. The govt. already has the power to regulate marriage. I asked where there is a bill sponsored to remove that power from govt. Your silence is indicative of the absence of such legal maneuvering thereby making all of your points meaningless.

The Christian Family Law - your words, that I espouse is not as far reaching as Sharia. You musty be ignorant of Sharia to say such a thing.
Do you know that under Sharia a man can have four wives?
Do you know that under Sharia a man can beat his wife?
Do you know that under Sharia a man can have multiple concubines including the wives?
Do you know it is encouraged to lie under Sharia provided it promotes the advancement of Sharia.
Do you know that under Sharia a person has three options for life?
1) To convert to Islam
2) To live as a second class citizen
3) To die

To state that my concepts are as far reaching as Sharia is either ignorance on your part or the advancement of a lie to perpetuate your own ideology - libertarianism.

You have again made the fallacious argument of appealing to emotions by using your childhood and current status as justification for your stance against those standing up for the natural family unit you have already agreed to is best for children.

As to getting over "my social righteousness" forget it. Righteousness exalts a nation. I will stand and fight for righteousness no matter who comes against it. Truth and righteousness are greater than men. Perhaps you should read the narrative in Genesis about some cities of the plain. They had their liberty unopposed. If this is your version of the American dream I want no part of it. As to my "Christian utopia" I have made no such claims so again this is hyperbole. I am firm in my stand for the defense of marriage to be between one man and one woman. Homosexual marriages are of the devil and are Antichrist.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

First let me say I am against same sex marriage. That being said, saying nut ball stuff like "If men are allowed to marry men, then they will want to marry dogs." is the stupidest arguement ever and makes anyone who says it look extremely dumb and nutty. Please dont compare two consensual adults to that.

It's not stupid nor is it a comparison.

The point is "Marriage" is and has been a defined word and practice for a very very long time. Now Homosexual activists want to force a change of definition onto the rest of society.

The argument is, once we open that door, can we close it?

It's the same principle for not allowing legalization of marijuana...that it will open the door to legalizing other drugs.

It's not the stupidest argument ever. It may not be the best argument or even a good one but actually dismissing other arguments that way makes you look extremely dumb and ill equipped to handle what others believe or fear will happen as the result of opening that door.

[Aquila]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/safranek1.html

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sadly this is apparent.


Again the hyperbole. The fact is this is the year 2013 and the govt. has evolved to what it is today. Stomp your feet all you want to but the reality is the govt. has taken authority over marriages.



With regards to homosexual marriages all Christians do think like me. That is not an assumption. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and then argues for an abomination (homosexual marriage) is Antichrist and not Christian. This whole "logic" is nothing more than a straw man masquerading as logic. Instead of dealing with homosexual marriage you have run off on tangents to include the time you spent in the Army. The purpose of this thread is to deal with homosexual marriage hence the title of the thread "Legality of Same Sex Marriage". Now if you want to start a thread where you berate others for being "Statists" because they disagree with you then please do so.

The fact remains people always vote their values. A Christian uses the Bible as their value system and should vote accordingly. Thankfully the pulpit is not silent.



Now we see the "attack" against those who disagree politically with you. You would silence the freedom of speech and religion by telling preachers they have no right to preach righteousness and stand against homosexual marriages because that is not "libertarian" enough for you. This after lecturing about freedoms and your service and pledge of death to uphold those freedoms you now admit to denying others. Hmmm... So much for "tolerance"...




Another straw man that does nothing to advance the discussion, just another tangent. The fact remains that it was many Christians that stood up against the institution of slavery that helped pave the way for the dismantling of that institution. Likewise, it does not matter how many "libertarians" argue against preachers for taking a stand against homosexual marriages we will press on and stand before God with a clear conscious. We have a right as citizens to voice our opinions and vote with our values and homosexual marriages are bad because they:
Are a biological perversion
Are detrimental to child development (see the Regnerus study and sooo many others)
Are a slippery slope for every other abomination
Are a direct violation of scripture



Again I ask where there is a bill to remove the authority of the state from the marriage process. The conspicuous absence of such a bill renders your whole logic as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This is nothing more than a Red Herring since the govt. already has the power to govern marriages.

You say I am arguing for the govt. to take control of something it already has the authority and power to control. Newsflash... The govt. took control of marriage a long time ago. I am defending the natural status of marriage to be between one man and one woman and stopping the govt. from imposing an abomination upon this country and attempting to force Christians to accept the abomination or face persecution.
Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.



If you are hearing violins you should change your radio station if you don't like it. What about the children is not a "typical political ploy". It is the truth. Marriages figure greatly in the adoption process. There is even now a legal case where a lesbian couple received donor fluid (pg rating here) to conceive a child. This "couple" has now asked for govt. assistance and the govt. is going after the donor for child support.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...-child-support

The family unit, this includes children, is the back bone of society. I am defending that back bone and you apparently don't care about it. Apparently you do not care what the best thing for children is (after all you are hearing violins...). The health insurance and all the other straw men arguments have nothing to do with the purpose of this thread - homosexual marriage. Children are an inescapable byproduct of homosexual marriages because marriage figures prominently when adopting children. Therefore, what is best for children is an important concept when considering the ramifications of homosexual marriage.



Here we have an example a logical fallacy known as the appeal to emotion. The personal reference is made to appeal to the emotion of the reader to shift focus from the facts of the case to the emotion. Where I am sorry to hear your child hood was bad you are not the only one.

We could use case studies from all the dysfunctional families and set them up in classes. We could divide them into categories such as children raised by mom only, children raised by father only, children raised on their own, children raised with a stepmother, children raised with a stepfather etc etc. In each case, provided there is a large sample taken, we can find children that turned out "okay". However, that is not the question. The question is what is best for children and study after study has proven that overall children have the best chance of success when raised by their biological parents.



Another red Herring/Straw man. The govt. already has taken the authority over marriage. This is not about whether the govt. has the authority or should have the authority - the govt. has taken that authority to itself and is attempting to force down the throats of every citizen an abomination. I and others like me are standing against that onslaught and others like you are arguing against those standing for righteousness. The best chance children have of liberty is to be raised by their biological parents yet you stand against those who are standing up for that system making yourself an enemy of the family.



Let's see... I am from planet earth.

Statist.

Marriage isn't the domain of the Government.

I'm not for silencing preachers... be it in the pulpit or street corners. Let the church preach righteousness. But liberty is holy... even if men choose to do that which is unholy with said liberty.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Good afternoon Brother Pliny!

Don't get your hackles up over what Brother Aquila has to say about marriage. He's correct about what he says concerning personal liberties in this land.
Perhaps you missed the threads that discussed the differences between the biblical marriage and the legal contractual marriages we practice here in America today.

Common law accepted biblical marriages. But somewhere along the line, admiral/maritime law came to America and changed our common law to the maritime law without our knowledge or consent. When that happened, the people suddenly had to get permission (license) from the state to enter into a legal marriage contract with another.

Under common law, sodomy was illegal and punishable. This law has been ignored for a long time. Why? Because we are not under common law anymore. We are under maritime law. Please look this up.

A good book to read called "They Own It All (Including You!) By Means of Toxic Currency" by Ronald MacDonald and Robert Rowen, M.D. explains the laws we are currently under very simply. I think there is a You Tube about this.

The gays also want this 'civil right' to enter into legal marriages because "legal" marriages and God sanctioned marriages are two different marriage definitions.
Denying them legal marriage does not stop them from "living in sin" anymore than granting them a "legal" marriage stops them from "living in sin" in the eyes of God.

We have couples who have went before God, said their vows before Him with witnesses and a preacher presiding over their marriage, yet there are some who would accuse this couple of living in sin because they have not obtained a 'state sanctioned' marriage license.

Which is greater? The state sanctioned license (grant permission) to marry or consecration of the vows to each other before God?

Good afternoon to you as well! Thank you for the thoughtful post. I am really not that far from Aquila when it comes to govt. control in spite of the charges of being a "statist". Though I have not done an in depth (scholarly) research into all the nuances of historical marriages I am not completely ignorant either. I know the current legal system is relatively new, historically. History is not the question. The question concerns itself with today's legal system not yesterdays. Arguing over the merits of whether the govt. should have control or not is meaningless as they do. That control is felt in numerous ways and has dire consequences for society as a whole and Christians in general. Unless there is a shift there is a very real possibility persecution to break out against all those who oppose homosexual marriages. It will not be a private affair especially for preachers who will most likely be sent to prison for denying to marry homosexual couples. There is also the very real threat of Christians being sued for denying "employment" to homosexuals and as we see even "Christian" hospitals are under attack for denying medical devices to prevent pregnancy. It is not a question of the merits of govt. control. It is a question of mitigating the consequences of the control the govt has taken and providing a godly influence - being the salt of the earth.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Statist.

Marriage isn't the domain of the Government.

I'm not for silencing preachers... be it in the pulpit or street corners. Let the church preach righteousness. But liberty is holy... even if men choose to do that which is unholy with said liberty.

Whatever...

The argument is not about the merits of govt. control over marriage. It has taken that control whether you like it or not. it is about mitigating the consequences of that control in a godly manner - being the salt of the earth.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's not stupid nor is it a comparison.

The point is "Marriage" is and has been a defined word and practice for a very very long time. Now Homosexual activists want to force a change of definition onto the rest of society.

And again... why is it possible that the definition of marriage might be changed??? Because we've allowed GOVERNMENT authority over marriage. With GOVERNMENT being in authority over marriage... GOVERNMENT has the right to define it. And should a lobbying body push hard enough, and courts agree, the GOVERNMENT will redefine it.

We need to take marriage back.

The argument is, once we open that door, can we close it?

It's the same principle for not allowing legalization of marijuana...that it will open the door to legalizing other drugs.

It's not the stupidest argument ever. It may not be the best argument or even a good one but actually dismissing other arguments that way makes you look extremely dumb and ill equipped to handle what others believe or fear will happen as the result of opening that door.

Open the door??? Gays are already living together and calling themselves married. Even various states and massive corporations are granting domestic partner benefits to accomodate gay couples who are in states where it is illegal to "marry". lol

As for drugs... alcohol prohibition tore America apart once. Now it is the war on drugs. Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug use. All they do is make it harder to help people. And just as Prohibition created organized crime, today's drug laws keep organized crime alive -- with all the violence and corruption that goes along with it. Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems. Let's respect the right of people to control their own bodies. Drug addiction can be addressed as a health and safety issue. Companies can require rehab for employees with drug addictions. A company can still require drug testing. It's a safety issue.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's not stupid nor is it a comparison.

The point is "Marriage" is and has been a defined word and practice for a very very long time. Now Homosexual activists want to force a change of definition onto the rest of society.

The argument is, once we open that door, can we close it?

It's the same principle for not allowing legalization of marijuana...that it will open the door to legalizing other drugs.

It's not the stupidest argument ever. It may not be the best argument or even a good one but actually dismissing other arguments that way makes you look extremely dumb and ill equipped to handle what others believe or fear will happen as the result of opening that door.

I agree the "slippery slope" argument is not the best. That's why it was placed last in my list of secular reasoning against homosexual marriage.
It is a biological perversion and it's not the best for children.

The slippery slope argument still cannot nor should be dismissed.