MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[Dreadsox]

I just threw something at the TV....Pat Robertson just said marriage was to have children.

i give up....why do they always go to this guy?

 

[melon]

Because he's a freakshow that gets people to watch TV.

Melon

 

[beli]

Hey Melon,

Thanks for the history behind the bible. Its all foreign to me. Your post has assisted this little black duck understand the bible side of this argument a little better. Ta.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

And we have just as much of a tendency to stick with tradition, no matter what, even if that tradition is wrong. The Pharisees are a classic example of Biblical fundamentalists, and look where they ended up with the first coming of Christ?

The Bible does not mention homosexuality. Period. The term originated out of Germany in 1874, and sufficiently shocked people. For that reason alone, supposed condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are incorrect. Prior to 1874, homosexual acts were viewed within three mindsets: acts performed by rebellious heterosexuals under the influence of "evil," acts performed to humiliate rivals, and acts performed in idolatry. In all three cases, the acts were performed by heterosexuals.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the oft-mentioned anti-gay passages, was not even interpreted that way until the rise of an apocryphal text from c. 200 B.C. called "The Book of Jubilees." This book was known amongst the people of the day, and was found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. All Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah are in the context of inhospitality towards strangers.

All mentions of supposed "homosexuals" in the Bible are really references to male temple prostitutes. In most "pagan" religions of the day, it was believed that sex brought one closer to the gods, and, thus, followers of these religions would engage in mass bisexual orgies in temples. The fact that people translate the "male temple prostitutes" as being homosexual is due to prejudice. A woman is not seen as being a patron to a prostitute, so it is thus inferred that men must be the patrons; thus declaring the prostitutes as "homosexual." That, however, is incorrect. The prostitutes were bisexual, and, thus, slept with men and women. Thus, the outrage was against this practice that we have no name for, as the temple prostitutes have not existed for nearly 2000 years, not "homosexuality" as discovered in 1874.

Melon

King James Bible was written in 1611, before the German invented the word "homosexulaity." And yet, looking back at it, the King James Bible does mention homosexuality, though the subject is not encapsulated in the word "homosexuality."

I'm not trying to pass judgment or pick a fight. I'm just stating an observation of fact.

 

[martha]

So, then.

What exactly are these people marching for? Or against? Can someone tell me, clearly and precisely, what threatens them so? Why are they so frightened to extend a civil right to a group of people that holds no physical or financial threat to them? Marriage, in a courthouse, in a church that recognises gay marriage (not your church, God forbid), on a beach, anywhere, with the full legal rights that any other courthouse, church, or beach wedding bestows...what is the threat to my marriage and yours? How does this change heterosexual marriage?


Give me real reasons that make sense in a democracy, not a theocracy, please.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Dreadsox, I don't know why people listen to Pat either. It boggles my mind.

But, to pose a different question, if God views homosexuality as a sin, what does that have to do with the right of homosexuals to marry in a democracy where church and state are Constitutionally separated?

Exactly.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
I guess if I am going to compare my wisdom with God's Wisdom, I will go with God.

God's never actually talked to any of us, though, and told us what he wanted. Men wrote the Bible, and they went based on what they thought God wanted. At least, that's how I see it.

And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?

Also, ditto your post, LivLuv.

Angela

 

[Liesje]

And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?

Nowhere in the Bible does God or anyone say "homosexuality is wrong". But it's certainly NOT encouraged or blessed anywhere in the Bible either. There are passages from which we can infer that God intended for marriage to be between man and woman ("You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh." etc, there are more but it's late). So both sides of this debate can argue for eternity b/c the people for it can always say "it doesn't state explicitly that blah blah blah is wrong" and those against it can continue to throw out verses in which it should be pretty obvious that it is meant to be wrong. The same thing goes for premarrital sex. The Bible doesn't say "premarrital sex is wrong" but there are enough verses on the subject to infer that that's what God means.

 

[melon]

Nowhere in the Bible does God or anyone say "homosexuality is wrong". But it's certainly NOT encouraged or blessed anywhere in the Bible either. There are passages from which we can infer that God intended for marriage to be between man and woman ("You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh." etc, there are more but it's late). So both sides of this debate can argue for eternity b/c the people for it can always say "it doesn't state explicitly that blah blah blah is wrong" and those against it can continue to throw out verses in which it should be pretty obvious that it is meant to be wrong. The same thing goes for premarrital sex. The Bible doesn't say "premarrital sex is wrong" but there are enough verses on the subject to infer that that's what God means.

You know, as much as I've refuted that passage in Leviticus...

(It is NOT that. If it were really "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination," the underlying Hebrew would be "'Ish' shall not lie with 'Ish' as with 'Ishah': it is 'to'evah'"; instead, that second "Ish" is really "Zakar," an obscure word thought to refer to the, yes, male temple prostitutes in pagan temples, as it was common then for people to take part in Baal fertility rituals (mass temple orgies), to guarantee good crops and healthy livestock. And "abomination" is not correct. At all. "To'evah" is a ritual condemnation. Eating shellfish and wearing multi-fibered clothing is "to'evah." That's because "to'evah" is part of the purity codes of the Mosaic Law, meaning that a big light should pop in your head saying, "Idolatry!" "Uncleanliness!" People with zits and menstruating women are "to'evah" too, which is why I think that the bigots who translated this passage have a clear, anti-gay agenda behind them to strip that passage out of all its historical context.)

...I've come to realize how frustrating it is when no one listens.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

You know, as much as I've refuted that passage in Leviticus...

(It is NOT that. If it were really "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination," the underlying Hebrew would be "'Ish' shall not lie with 'Ish' as with 'Ishah': it is 'to'evah'"; instead, that second "Ish" is really "Zakar," an obscure word thought to refer to the, yes, male temple prostitutes in pagan temples, as it was common then for people to take part in Baal fertility rituals (mass temple orgies), to guarantee good crops and healthy livestock. And "abomination" is not correct. At all. "To'evah" is a ritual condemnation. Eating shellfish and wearing multi-fibered clothing is "to'evah." That's because "to'evah" is part of the purity codes of the Mosaic Law, meaning that a big light should pop in your head saying, "Idolatry!" "Uncleanliness!" People with zits and menstruating women are "to'evah" too, which is why I think that the bigots who translated this passage have a clear, anti-gay agenda behind them to strip that passage out of all its historical context.)

...I've come to realize how frustrating it is when no one listens.

Melon

I'm not placing my beliefs on a single passage in Leviticus. I did a quick Google search "homosexuality Bible" and that's the first thing that popped up. I don't know what translation of the Bible it even came from, nor do I care. Your post only proves my point that this debate will go back and forth forever b/c there is no clearly stated answer anywhere, that's all I was trying to say.

 

[Dreadsox]

God's never actually talked to any of us, though, and told us what he wanted. Men wrote the Bible, and they went based on what they thought God wanted. At least, that's how I see it.

That is your opinion. Others do not share this opinion. This is a matter of FAITH for people who believe that the bible is the WORD of God. You are never going to make any headway arguing your points with them because it is a matter of FAITH.


This is why I figured it is easier to say fine, you can say it is sin. I am not going to argue if it is or it isn't. But can you tell me how granting marriage rights is going to change what two people do behind closed doors? Can you tell me why two people who love each other for twenty years cannot have the same rights as my wife and I? Being married has NOT prevented either of us from being human beings and SINNING. Being married has given us rights that others who love each other deserve to have.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why is the state performing marriages in a democracy anyways? I still say the state should not be doing that.

One thing, todays march has grown now to include the local Catholic Bishop and former Ambassador Ray Flynn.

There is no longer any mention of the woman's group on the news.

Since I am not marching...lol I am not answering. I am not with them on this issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]SAME-SEX SUPPORT VARIES DEPENDING ON PROPOSED POLICY

When asked to consider issues related to legal reforms and court decisions regarding unions between same-sex individuals, the level of support varied significantly depending on the type of policy considered.

For example: Only 28.7% agreed that the Catholic Church should make the sacrament of marriage available to same-sex couples. However, when asked about allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, that support increased to 38.7%.

Importantly, when asked about civil unions in which same-sex couples receive all of the legal protections of marriage, but the term ?marriage? is NOT used, support increased with a majority of Catholics (56.4%) agreeing with this proposal.

Compared to other national surveys, Catholics in the CCT survey appear to be more conservative on the issue of religious marriage, about the same as other Americans on the question of civil marriage and more liberal than other Americans on t he issue of civil unions.

Turning to recent Vatican teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, respondents generally agreed with the Vatican position that homosexual behavior is against natural law (63.2%), while significantly smaller majorities agreed with the Church?s positions that Catholics should oppose civil laws allowing same-sex marriages (54.3%) and that Catholic public officials should oppose such laws (53.8%).[/Q]

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=804

 

[melon]

You Do Your Job Let Us Do Ours Gay Marriage Judge Tells Lawmakers

by Rich Peters

Posted: February 8, 2004 12:02 a.m. ET

(Regina, Saskatchewan) The Canadian judge who who decreed marriage cannot be limited to opposite-sex couples had some tough words on the weekend for lawmakers seeking to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians on both sides of the border.

Roy McMurtry, the Chief Justice of Ontario, said the courts are obligated to intervene when society "is not faithful to its basic values."

McMurty headed the Ontario Court of Appeals tribunal that last year threw out the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman and ruled that same-sex couples could immediately begin to marry.

The ruling was followed by a similar judgment in British Columbia.

Speaking on the weekend to the Saskatchewan chapter of the Canadian Bar Association in Regina, McMurtry said that judges have to be guided by basic and fundamental values rather than public opinion.

"While a judge should often be guided by public consensus, there are times when the court should lead the way and be a crusader for a new consensus," he said.

His comments are a slap at politicians in both Canada and the US who are using the argument that judges are overstepping their bounds.

Both conservative members of the Canadian Parliament and the Congress use the argument that it is the prerogative of the elected legislature to enact laws. In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush warned that if "activist judges" continue to rewrite marriage law he would support a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage.

But McMurtry said they need to be reminded of the difference between the roles of the judiciary and elected politicians.

"As elected representatives, they have practical obligations to advance the interests of the majority. When this obligation conflicts with the rights of groups or individuals in society, it is not necessarily the duty of elected representatives to protect the minority," he said.

"In stark contrast, it can be said that the judicial function may well be anti-majoritarian in the sense it is often charged with the responsibility of protecting the minority."

A lifelong Conservative, McMurtry was Ontario's attorney-general from 1975 to 1985 and was one of the key architects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's bill of rights.

He was appointed to the bench by former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

King James Bible was written in 1611, before the German invented the word "homosexulaity." And yet, looking back at it, the King James Bible does mention homosexuality, though the subject is not encapsulated in the word "homosexuality."

I'm not trying to pass judgment or pick a fight. I'm just stating an observation of fact.

This is correct. The word "homosexuality"' is not use, but multiple passages in the Old and New testament do speak to homosexual acts.

 

[nbcrusader]

And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?

God has a problem with sin, so why did he create any of us.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So, then.

What exactly are these people marching for? Or against? Can someone tell me, clearly and precisely, what threatens them so? Why are they so frightened to extend a civil right to a group of people that holds no physical or financial threat to them? Marriage, in a courthouse, in a church that recognises gay marriage (not your church, God forbid), on a beach, anywhere, with the full legal rights that any other courthouse, church, or beach wedding bestows...what is the threat to my marriage and yours? How does this change heterosexual marriage?

Give me real reasons that make sense in a democracy, not a theocracy, please.

Good questions. I don't understand what the problem is, either. I don't understand why some people can't allow homosexuals to just be able to do what makes them happy.

Angela

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good point ^^^^. And that's where a good deal of my questions involving religion in general come from to begin with.

That is your opinion. Others do not share this opinion. This is a matter of FAITH for people who believe that the bible is the WORD of God. You are never going to make any headway arguing your points with them because it is a matter of FAITH.

Eh. I just want answers, that's all. I'm not intending on changing their views-that's up to them whether or not they want to agree with me. I'm just curious to see their answers in regards to that. All I really want to know is where exactly the sin is in homosexuality, what it is that God apparently frowns upon regarding it.

Originally posted by Dreadsox
This is why I figured it is easier to say fine, you can say it is sin. I am not going to argue if it is or it isn't. But can you tell me how granting marriage rights is going to change what two people do behind closed doors? Can you tell me why two people who love each other for twenty years cannot have the same rights as my wife and I? Being married has NOT prevented either of us from being human beings and SINNING. Being married has given us rights that others who love each other deserve to have.

Agree completely with this.

Angela

 

[melon]

This is correct. The word "homosexuality"' is not use, but multiple passages in the Old and New testament do speak to homosexual acts.

Multiple passages in the Old and New Testament speak of heterosexual acts too, but the difference between these and what you say about homosexual acts is that you look at the latter as blanket "homosexual acts," not what was being done in the context of them. However, when heterosexual Biblical figures perform disgusting heterosexual acts, we look at them for what happened in them: rape, incest, etc. Thus, a heterosexual act is not judged solely for its act; it's judged on the context in which the act happened.

Does this passage remind you of something? That's right. It's pretty much a mirror of Sodom and Gomorrah, except that a group of men come to the door to "abuse" a male houseguest of a Levite. Pleading that this man was a guest of his house (hence, the importance of being hospitable to guests), he offers his "maiden daughter" and his "concubine." This time around, though, the men accept the concubine, gang rape her, and kill her. In the end, God summons an army to destroy Gibeah in vengeance for the rape and murder of the concubine. So, since this is clearly the heterosexual analog of Sodom and Gomorrah, isn't this clear evidence of God condemning a heterosexual act, and, thus, if we are to use the same logic against homosexual acts, aren't all heterosexual acts evil? Or are you going to admit that the context of the act--sex in the name of rape and murder, not love--is what makes it bad?

So let's do the same with homosexual acts. Assuming that all the Biblical texts reflect on homosexuality (even though I believe that that is debateable), what is happening within them that makes them abhorrent? You have rape, humiliation, idolatry, and, in different words, possession--all performed by heterosexuals, mind you. The Bible is pretty uniform in the fact that acts performed out of rape, humiliation, idolatry, incest, etc. are bad, not because "God said so," but, clearly, they are acts done with malicious or idolatrous intentions--contrary to love.

And that's why I end up going back to Romans 13:8-10:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

Frankly, both history and secular scholarly interpretation of the Bible are more supportive of my stance on this issue than yours. The idea of a homosexual existing did not occur until 1874, hence why the Bible does not refer to loving same-sex couples. The only reason why I believe religion just doesn't let this issue go is out of pride. It will never admit that it is wrong, no matter how much history, anthropology, scholarship, and even the Bible (free from traditional misinterpretations) laugh in its face.

200 years ago, the Bible was used to justify slavery, and I'm sure that we made an argument against this interpretation 200 years ago, we'd have been laughed at. 100 years ago, the Bible was used to justify the marginalization of women, and if we had made an argument against this interpretation, we'd have been laughed at. And now comes the next logical step. When unshackled by pride, the burden of tradition, and the fear of change, it's quite interesting how people view the Bible differently.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

The only reason why I believe religion just doesn't let this issue go is out of pride.

Maybe that's true for some people but certainly not for me.

Besides, you could say that about anything. I could say the only reason why you think you're right is because of your own pride. Now I'm NOT saying that b/c that's not what I think of your opinions at all, but the pride insult works either way.

 

[nbcrusader]

200 years ago, the Bible was used to justify slavery, and I'm sure that we made an argument against this interpretation 200 years ago, we'd have been laughed at.

People using the Bible to justify sinful behavior?? Say it isn't so.

Surely, as a student of history, you would remember that Christian led the way to abolish slavery over 200 years ago.

Some passages may be dismissed due to historical context. The same argument does not work for other passages (Romans 1:27). The bible condemns divorce, but many believers are happy to go down that path.

But I will stand with you arm in arm on Romans 13. Love is at the core of who and what a Christian is and does.

Peace

 

[melon]

The same argument does not work for other passages (Romans 1:27).

Funny. You've taken one verse out of Romans, and stripped all of the context out of it. Did you read what preceded that verse?

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." -- Romans 1:25

Idolatry!

Did you read at all as to what follows that verse?

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?" -- Romans 2:1-6

You acknowledge Romans 13. THAT is the point of the entire epistle. What St. Paul is doing with Romans 1 is pointing to an example that Jewish Christians would understand within the confines of the Jewish purity codes within the Mosaic Law. Hence, this is a likely reference to the bisexual orgies within Roman temples to their pagan gods, a practice common for them, and, due to the success of Christianity, it was wiped out. AGAIN, the concept of a homosexual did not exist until 1874; before then, it was heterosexuals performing same-sex acts. These pagan temples were the most glaring example during St. Paul's day, and it was probably unbridled hedonism coupled with idolatry that would have angered people.

But again, you have taken the passage out of context. As St. Paul makes this connection to appeal to the Jewish Christians, he argues that God has handed these people over to impurity with the lust of their hearts. Instead of curbing their interests, God leaves them to their self-indulgence, thereby removing the facade of apparent conformity to the divine will. Subsequently, St. Paul then shows that the *Mosaic Law* produces the same effect (Romans 5:20; 7:13-24) and Romans 13 is the "moral" of the story. Basically, Romans is summed up as saying that those who prescribe to Mosaic Law will never live up to it, but, ultimately, through the grace of Jesus Christ, the Mosaic Law is no more; and through the commandment of Jesus Christ--"Love one another"--a Christian is working within "the law."

Melon

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

We can debate biblical passages until we're blue in the face and I don't think we're going to change anyone's mind.

What I would like to know from those we are against the legalization of gay marriage is the answer to this question (and I don't recall seeing an answer to this anywhere in the thread):
Why should gay marriage be illegal when we have a seperation of church and state in this country? The arguments against gay marriage that I see here are all based upon religious beliefs. I thought this country wasn't supposed to make laws based on religion. I don't care if you believe homosexuality is wrong, that is your business and right whether I agree with it or not. Why should your religious beliefs apply to everyone else? Is there some other basis for this belief other than religion? Fear of change? Tradition? I don't think I've ever seen a direct answer to this question and would be really interested to see if anyone has an answer to it.

 

[martha]

What I would like to know from those we are against the legalization of gay marriage is the answer to this question (and I don't recall seeing an answer to this anywhere in the thread):
Why should gay marriage be illegal when we have a seperation of church and state in this country?

This, dearest, is the same question that still goes unanswered in the gay marriage thread.

 

[nbcrusader]

Maybe more than just the "Church" is involved....

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

Melon, I'm only posting to gain some insight into what you believe about the Bible.

Funny. You've taken one verse out of Romans, and stripped all of the context out of it. Did you read what preceded that verse?

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." -- Romans 1:25

Idolatry!
Melon

What precedes is the following:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=romans+1&NASB_version=yes&language=english

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

In this passage, there are some traces of Leviticus 18. I am curious how you would interpret this contained passage (which is half of Romans 1; the chapter does not end with the 25th verse, obviously). Please feel free to incorporate your previous arguments in this thread, if you'd like. I'm not trying to argue and pound your head with theological arguments, but rather I'm just curious to know where you're coming from...

soulfulmofo

I know BLS was trying to get to a separate thread topic... but somehow both threads are still too similar by nature... they should be merged, because I'm getting confused reading one thread and switching back to the other.

 

[melon]

All you did was strengthen my previous argument that St. Paul was making a colorful description of idolatry. Romans 1:23 talk about exchanging God for a god in "corruptible man"--the Roman Empire worshipped their emperor as a god--and "birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures"--a knock against pagan representations of gods (remember the "Golden Calf"?)

And it may have traces of Leviticus 18, because that is the heart of the Purity Codes, which St. Paul is making reference to, appealing to Jewish Christian sensibilities. Remind you, it is not a sincere appeal; he spends the rest of Romans rejecting the Mosaic Law, stating that only the grace of Jesus Christ saves, not following Mosaic Law, which is impossible to follow to the letter. Leviticus 18:22 is the supposed anti-gay passage, but it is sandwiched in-between blatant anti-idolatry messages. Leviticus 18:21 prohibits burning your child in offering to Molech (a pagan god) and Leviticus 18:23 makes reference to bestiality with women--again, another pagan practice. Ripping apart Leviticus 18:22, there is ample evidence that it should really be translated: "A husband shall not lie with a male temple prostitute as a woman; such a thing is taboo." (zakar="male temple prostitute" [there is no modern word to simplify that phrase]) (to'evah="ritual taboo"; "act that makes one unclean"; mistranslated as "abomination").

Again, not to talk like I am blue in the face and a broken record, they cannot have referenced homosexuality as we have known it over the last century, because it did not exist as a concept until 1874. The Bible is referring to practices that have not existed since the time that Christianity took over the Roman Empire, and, thus, closed down the temples to pagan gods, and, thus, ended the temple prostitution.

Melon

 

[martha]

Maybe more than just the "Church" is involved....

This is not an answer to the question.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Maybe more than just the "Church" is involved....

The church is only involved within each individual. What relationship everyone shares with God and the church is personal. That is not to say it is taboo to share what you have with others, or to talk about why you have/feel what you do, but it can never be imposed on someone else.
If anything, only because it is faith.

But you say more than the church.
Like the state?

If this is what you meant, I again ask this question in general of why the state has a say.

This forum likes parallel hypothetical examples....

What if the state declared whom one can marry?

Or if the state declared a married couple can only have sex on Tuesdays.

Wouldn't everyone then gain a bit of insight into what many homosexual couples feel? The sheer outrage and frustration that somebody completely removed from their personal lives has control over how precisely this life is lived while causing no harm to society or others in any way.

This topic is old in this forum, and even older and larger in real life. But in here, I keep getting the feeling there is some definite resistance to the idea of gay marriage and yet due to fear of speaking an unfavourable view, or perhaps from sheer lack of valid basis, no good arguments are ever put forward as to why these marriages cannot be allowed. People hedge, bring in convoluted bible passages which are so prone to interpretation no one can even agree on what an otherwise mutual faith is wanting and so on.

 

[martha]

or perhaps from sheer lack of valid basis, no good arguments are ever put forward as to why these marriages cannot be allowed. People hedge, bring in convoluted bible passages which are so prone to interpretation no one can even agree on what an otherwise mutual faith is wanting and so on.

I know. Bible passages cited to debate laws...

 

[pax]

Which leads me to wonder, once again, why Dershowitz's solution cannot be used; that is, call ALL legal unions "civil unions," regardless of whether the participants are gay or straight, and leave the question of *marriage* to the churches. Then churches could extend *marriage* to straight couples, gay couples, or both as various religious traditions see fit. Because while there may be some decent arguments as to why religious traditions should not be compelled to extend marriage to gay persons, I have not yet seen a good legal argument.