Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Plus there is no evidence at all to suggest children of gay/leisbian couples are any less well adjusted then those of heterosexual couples.

I'd imagine the data is too thin on the ground to draw firm conclusions - especially given the large number of influencing factors that produce well/unwell adjustedness. And the difficulty in pinning down what 'well-adjustedness' might be.

Me? I really have a hard time figuring out how a gay woman is going to model manhood to a boy.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Why want to keep 'marriage' as exclusive to heterosexual relationships while at the same time 'suporting' (This being an action word) civil union? Or is the civil union you refer to, the idea that anyone, platonic or otherwise can enter into a kind of next of kin agreement?

Because I see marriage as a religious commitment (in the Christian sense this is a union between a woman, a man and God), whereas I see civil union as a secular contract between two persons.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because I see marriage as a religious commitment (in the Christian sense this is a union between a woman, a man and God), whereas I see civil union as a secular contract between two persons.

So anyone who is not Christian is not married? Or any non believer is not married?

The Smurf

JimiTime wrote: »

So anyone who is not Christian is not married? Or any non believer is not married?

The marriage would be considered a natural marriage, rather than a sacramental marriage, according to Catholic teaching.

Catholic + Catholic = sacramental marriage
Catholic + Protestant = sacramental Marriage (Catholic party needs a dispensation from Church)
Catholic + Jew (or any other non-Christian religion) = natural marriage

Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, for life, according to God's plan.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because I see marriage as a religious commitment (in the Christian sense this is a union between a woman, a man and God), whereas I see civil union as a secular contract between two persons.

Genuine question. Do you see "marriage" exclusively in the Christian sense? Like if two people of a different religion were married would you think they weren't since they have not made a contract between themselves and God? Or two atheists?

EDIT Whoops I see Jimi has asked that already, answering his question will satisfy mine, ignore EDIT

Zombrex

The Smurf wrote: »

The marriage would be considered a natural marriage, rather than a sacramental marriage, according to Catholic teaching.

Catholic + Catholic = sacramental marriage
Catholic + Protestant = sacramental Marriage (Catholic party needs a dispensation from Church)
Catholic + Jew (or any other non-Christian religion) = natural marriage

Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, for life, according to God's plan.

Do you agree though that the word itself is often used by non-Christians in a non-Christian context yet still in a valid away? Like two Hindus wills say to each other "We are getting married" even though they aren't thinking "In a Christians sense this is a natural marriage". They mean it in the context to them (what ever a Hindu marriage involves) and that this context is still a valid way to use the word.

I suppose what I'm asking is do you think Christians in society should decide what the word marriage is defined as (as you have above) for all of society or just for other Christians? Do you think marriage is a Christian word?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

So you stop short of allowing homosexual marriage due to you the children question? Is that the only reason? If they allowed homosexual marriage, but not homosexual adoption, you'd be ok with that?

Depends what you mean by allowing homosexual marriage. I don't think any church should be forced into performing marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, if the State wants to have some Partnership/Union for homosexual couples or heterosexual couples then I'm ok with that.

Any configuration of a State 'wedding' then I don't see an issue, as long as the heterosexual coupling/family is bestowed with more benefits and rights.

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

Me? I really have a hard time figuring out how a gay woman is going to model manhood to a boy.

By that rationale how could a Christian single mother do the same? There are uncles/ brothers/ cousins/ grandfather who can provide a father figure..

I really have a hard time with this forum at times. People will use the Bible to support anything they believe. You can riddle off quotes to oppose homosexuality. On the flip side you can also use quotes such as this: "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female for you are all one in Jesus Christ..."

"Now I know that God does not show partiality but accepts people from every nation who fear him and do what is right"

If you believe in the Bible then you will also believe that God will bring "these people" to judgement. That is not up to you to do it!

The hypocrisy of some so called Christians really saddens me. Let he who is without sin...

If gays are allowed to get married will that mean "normal" people will stop getting married? That their marriage will be any less sacred? No it won't! If God is opposed to these marriages they will be brought to judgement by Him, not by you!

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

You understand, that letting it be, is different to 'supporting' it though?

I do - although I didn't suggest 'letting it be'. I'm against the notion diluting the traditional understanding of marriage because I think it damaging to the fabric of society in general. That doesn't mean I think the church should become a lobby group.

Also, with regards to 'politicising' Christianity. When you say, 'form political unions', is that like getting entwined with a political party, or are you talking about uniting to oppose the introduction of abortion etc?

I mean uniting to oppose the introduction of abortion. Not in the sense that people can have an opinion and might want to express that opinion. But I'm against the sense of the church becoming a lobby group who attempt to make society conform to Christian values.

The Highwayman

The Smurf wrote: »

The marriage would be considered a natural marriage, rather than a sacramental marriage, according to Catholic teaching.

Catholic + Catholic = sacramental marriage
Catholic + Protestant = sacramental Marriage (Catholic party needs a dispensation from Church)
Catholic + Jew (or any other non-Christian religion) = natural marriage

Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, for life, according to God's plan.

How do you know do you know god?

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

By that rationale how could a Christian single mother do the same?

She couldn't. And because she can't and because such family units aren't ideal for society at large, the state shouldn't be endeavouring to encourage such family units.

There are uncles/ brothers/ cousins/ grandfather who can provide a father figure..

Indeed. But the suggestion is the state should be working to propagate the ideal situation - not the less than ideal.

I really have a hard time with this forum at times. People will use the Bible to support anything they believe. You can riddle off quotes to oppose homosexuality. On the flip side you can also use quotes such as this: "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female for you are all one in Jesus Christ..."

"Now I know that God does not show partiality but accepts people from every nation who fear him and do what is right"

If you believe in the Bible then you will also believe that God will bring "these people" to judgement. That is not up to you to do it!

1) You've just used the Bible to support what you believe. We might suppose one of us can be correct? It might not be you.

2) There isn't judgement in what I say: I've made a quite narrow point to do with the rights of children. I believe the state should promote a situation where a child has the best chance of being brought up by it's biological parents. I also think the state has a duty to promote a boy child being having manhood modelled to him by a man.

Pointing to the non-ideal isn't a way to make a case for dissolving the ideal.

The hypocrisy of some so called Christians really saddens me. Let he who is without sin...

Again, I've not said anything to condemn anyone.

If gays are allowed to get married will that mean "normal" people will stop getting married? That their marriage will be any less sacred? No it won't! If God is opposed to these marriages they will be brought to judgement by Him, not by you!

My points haven't dealt with the relgious realm, only the societal one.

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) You've just used the Bible to support what you believe. We might suppose one of us can be correct? It might not be you.

That's exactly my point. I can quote something to support my view, you can quote something to support yours. Just because you can quote something from the Bible doesn't say a lot. You can probably find supporting and opposing quotes for any subject in it.

I would also would like to make clear that my post was not directed at you antiskeptic. Just your line that I had quoted. Apologies if you believe it was directed toward you.

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

That's exactly my point. I can quote something to support my view, you can quote something to support yours. Just because you can quote something from the Bible doesn't say a lot. You can probably find supporting and opposing quotes for any subject in it.

Indeed. But rather than conclude the Bible is useless because it can be made to say anything anyone likes, I'd prefer to suppose that a little investigation would reveal it's intent. On the issue of gay sex, the Bible has argument that strongly appear to condemn the practice. I don't know if there are any arguments in it that support it, or say it's okay.

I would also would like to make clear that my post was not directed at you antiskeptic. Just your line that I had quoted. Apologies if you believe it was directed toward you.

No problem.

So, on the issue of the state promoting the less-than-ideal scenario, what say you?

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, on the issue of the state promoting the less-than-ideal scenario, what say you?

I don't know in this day and age if there is an ideal scenario. Is a "nuclear" family with an abusive father figure (or mother for that matter) better than a homosexual loving "family"?

I think of course that the family should be promoted by the state. But I don't think that gay marriages lessen the "normal" family or sanctity of marriage.

I mean if people here who are opposed to gay marriage meet a same sex couple who are married, their thoughts are likely to be "you're not married as you are not a male and female". So what harm? You (not specifically you) don't acknowledge their marriage, they do. If they're committed to each other, and love each and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I think they should be allowed.

Whether it's my own prejudice, I dunno, but I don't think I would see it as being the same as a male/ female marriage. But that's just through conditioning being brought up with what is "normal". Regardless of what I think, I do think they should be allowed.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I don't know in this day and age if there is an ideal scenario. Is a "nuclear" family with an abusive father figure (or mother for that matter) better than a homosexual loving "family"?

This isn't what is being said. What is being said is that in most cases it is better if a child is raised with both a mother and a father than without. Like antiskeptic, I don't really think a woman can replace a father, or a man replace a mother, and I think the State should try and preserve this for as many children as possible.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I mean if people here who are opposed to gay marriage meet a same sex couple who are married, their thoughts are likely to be "you're not married as you are not a male and female". So what harm? You (not specifically you) don't acknowledge their marriage, they do. If they're committed to each other, and love each and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I think they should be allowed.

I think they would be legally married. Whether or not I personally agree that such a marriage has been carried out is another thing altogether.

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass wrote: »

I think they would be legally married. Whether or not I personally agree that such a marriage has been carried out is another thing altogether.

Exactly. So where's the problem?

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Exactly. So where's the problem?

The issue lies in the parenting of children.

Personally, I believe that homosexual acts are immoral to begin with as antiskeptic has already pointed out, but one cannot really impose morality top down through the legal system. I believe that the true place for sexual acts is within a marriage, between a man and a woman as God intended, but I also understand that people are not always going to seek to obey Him.

What one can and should do is put the welfare and best interest of children above any relationship structure.

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I don't know in this day and age if there is an ideal scenario. Is a "nuclear" family with an abusive father figure (or mother for that matter) better than a homosexual loving "family"?

The States role in promoting what's good for society doesn't involve such micro managment (although they will take action against gross abuse - sometimes). Rather, the States role is to set a course that it considers desirable for the overall good of society - not just what's good for a particular grouping of people. Structurally dismantling the nature of family so as to ensure that children won't be brought up a) by their biological parents b) a parent of the same sex (in the case eg of a boy in a female gay family) is a move I'd be wondering about.

I think of course that the family should be promoted by the state. But I don't think that gay marriages lessen the "normal" family or sanctity of marriage.

?

You can't promote A whilst at the same time handing out the benefits of that promotion to B. Otherwise you're promoting both A and B equally.

I mean if people here who are opposed to gay marriage meet a same sex couple who are married, their thoughts are likely to be "you're not married as you are not a male and female". So what harm? You (not specifically you) don't acknowledge their marriage, they do. If they're committed to each other, and love each and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I think they should be allowed.

They don't need civil unions to spend the rest of their lives together. Nor do they need marriage. With Civil Union come rights. With marriage come other rights. It's those rights I'm concerned about - such as the right to adopt children. And more generally, promoting family units that structurally can't supply the benefits that a traditional marriage supplies to society.

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue lies in the parenting of children.

Personally, I believe that homosexual acts are immoral to begin with as antiskeptic has already pointed out, but one cannot really impose morality top down through the legal system. I believe that the true place for sexual acts is within a marriage, between a man and a woman as God intended, but I also understand that people are not always going to seek to obey Him.

What one can and should do is put the welfare and best interest of children above any relationship structure.

But the parenting of children is a separate issue from gay marriages. Just because a same sex couple get "married" doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be parents.

So, do you believe sex should only be for the sake of producing offspring? Do you think contraception is immoral? Separate issue I know, but only asking out of curiosity.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue lies in the parenting of children.

Personally, I believe that homosexual acts are immoral to begin with as antiskeptic has already pointed out, but one cannot really impose morality top down through the legal system. I believe that the true place for sexual acts is within a marriage, between a man and a woman as God intended, but I also understand that people are not always going to seek to obey Him.

What one can and should do is put the welfare and best interest of children above any relationship structure.

I think what Vinny is asking is do you see a non-theological objection to a same sex couple raising children (ie it is harmful to the children)?

Or is it purely that it goes against God's plan (ie if God's plan wasn't there there would be no objection)?

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

But the parenting of children is a separate issue from gay marriages. Just because a same sex couple get "married" doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be parents.

In Ireland, our Constitution suggests that marriage is the foundation of the family. As such family has to be taken into consideration when one is thinking about legalising same-sex marriage. Even if it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be parents, the rights have to be taken into account. It is bad law-making to not consider all the possibilities.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

So, do you believe sex should only be for the sake of producing offspring? Do you think contraception is immoral? Separate issue I know, but only asking out of curiosity.

I personally don't, because I don't think there is a Biblical basis for such an objection.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what Vinny is asking is do you see a non-theological objection to a same sex couple raising children (ie it is harmful to the children)?

The whole objection is non-theological. Children should in as many cases as possible have a mother and a father, their biological parents if possible. As antiskeptic has said, having two mothers isn't going to be the best basis for learning about manhood, and likewise having two fathers isn't going to be the best basis for learning about womanhood, and even then mothers impact their sons in ways that fathers don't impact their sons and vice versa in respect to daughters.

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

They don't need civil unions to spend the rest of their lives together. Nor do they need marriage.

Neither do straight couples. So why do they choose to get married?

With Civil Union come rights. With marriage come other rights. It's those rights I'm concerned about - such as the right to adopt children. And more generally, promoting family units that structurally can't supply the benefits that a traditional marriage supplies to society.

I think if any couple can provide a loving home to a child and they meet all the standards that is required they should be allowed.

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

But the parenting of children is a separate issue from gay marriages. Just because a same sex couple get "married" doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be parents.

You persist in focusing on what might or might not occur in an individual case when you should be focussing on the general case. Generally, marriage attracts rights and protections involving children that might be produced within the marriage. In so far as these rights and protections are granted, marriage is being promoted. In the case of gay marriages, the issue of adoption becomes a more significant issue that is usual - whether or not this gay couple or that gay couple will adopt isn't the issue. The fact is that marriage gives rights in this area.

Which is, it is being argued, contrary to the best interests of the child and society.

So, do you believe sex should only be for the sake of producing offspring? Do you think contraception is immoral? Separate issue I know, but only asking out of curiosity.

I don't think contraception is immoral. And can't see what application it would have in a gay marriage.

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Neither do straight couples. So why do they choose to get married?

In the context of my point: to gain the rights and protections afforded by the State in the States desire to promote a family situation that is beneficial to society.

I think if any couple can provide a loving home to a child and they meet all the standards that is required they should be allowed.

I'd agree - with the provision that the State not support/promote gay marriage for the reasons already given.

Vinny-Chase

antiskeptic wrote: »

You persist in focusing on what might or might not occur in an individual case when you should be focussing on the general case. Generally, marriage attracts rights and protections involving children that might be produced within the marriage. In so far as these rights and protections are granted, marriage is being promoted. In the case of gay marriages, the issue of adoption becomes a more significant issue that is usual - whether or not this gay couple or that gay couple will adopt isn't the issue. The fact is that marriage gives rights in this area.

Which is, it is being argued, contrary to the best interests of the child and society.

So you would take the Maude Flanders "Won't somebody please think of the children?" point of view?

If gay marriage were allowed but same sex couples were not allowed to care for children, would you be opposed to that?

Morbert

The adoption issue is not a light one. But I am not immediately opposed to eventually extending adoption rights to homosexual couples, provided the rights of the child are always prioritised. I'm assuming no-one would argue that a parent-less or single-parent child is in a better position than a child with homosexual parents. And if* it is true that, all else being equal, a heterosexual household is healthier for a child than a homosexual household, then heterosexual couples should indeed get priority.

*I should stress the 'if'.

antiskeptic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

So you would take the Maude Flanders "Won't somebody please think of the children?" point of view?

I take the view that the welfare and rights of children is a good thing for the State to promote/protect.

If gay marriage were allowed but same sex couples were not allowed to care for children, would you be opposed to that?

Gay couples can care for children already - no-one can prevent a gay couple going to a surrogate for instance. My point has to do with the stance of the State - in so far as it can influence societies direction.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Depends what you mean by allowing homosexual marriage. I don't think any church should be forced into performing marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, if the State wants to have some Partnership/Union for homosexual couples or heterosexual couples then I'm ok with that.

So if the state calls it marriage, you are ok with that? So long as Churches etc are not forced to conduct such ceremonies?

Any configuration of a State 'wedding' then I don't see an issue, as long as the heterosexual coupling/family is bestowed with more benefits and rights.

What do you mean by more benefits and rights? Something more than the children issue?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I do - although I didn't suggest 'letting it be'. I'm against the notion diluting the traditional understanding of marriage because I think it damaging to the fabric of society in general. That doesn't mean I think the church should become a lobby group.

So, do you support (action word) Civil Union? Or do you oppose (action word) it? Or Do you disagree or agree with it, but let the world get on doing its thing?

I mean uniting to oppose the introduction of abortion. Not in the sense that people can have an opinion and might want to express that opinion. But I'm against the sense of the church becoming a lobby group who attempt to make society conform to Christian values.

'Make society conform', seems a bit millitant. What if they simply gather as one voice in protest, to oppose, lets say, abortion, or slavery, or child labour, or poverty etc? How, in your opinion, should Christians express themselves in relation to such topics? Should they unite under a banner of 'concerned citizens'? You know yourself, if they did, someone else would stick the christian label on it anyway.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

So, do you support (action word) Civil Union?

I do not support it actively or otherwise.

Or do you oppose (action word) it?

I oppose it in places like these. I haven't gotten to writing to my local TD but if it were a referendum issue I'd get out and vote No.

Do you disagree or agree with it, but let the world get on doing its thing?

I disagree with it but wouldn't raise too strong an objection to the world doing as it wants.

'Make society conform', seems a bit millitant. What if they simply gather as one voice in protest, to oppose, lets say, abortion, or slavery, or child labour, or poverty etc? How, in your opinion, should Christians express themselves in relation to such topics? Should they unite under a banner of 'concerned citizens'? You know yourself, if they did, someone else would stick the christian label on it anyway.

Let me attempt to address it this way: if a Christian feels that civil union is detrimental to society then by all means get out and protest as a concerned member of society. If two or more in a particular church feel that way then by all means share a ride to the protest site. But by grouping together as a church you are:

a) protesting on Christian grounds: seeking in other words, to ensure that society operates according to Christian principles.

b) representing the Church to the world whereas not all members of the church will be opposed to civil union.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

So if the state calls it marriage, you are ok with that? So long as Churches etc are not forced to conduct such ceremonies?

Would prefer some other title be used.

JimiTime wrote: »

What do you mean by more benefits and rights? Something more than the children issue?

The Constitutional mention for instance, state priorities given. Bit vague but I need to look into it a bit more. IMO the State should always promote the ideal.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

Any configuration of a State 'wedding' then I don't see an issue, as long as the heterosexual coupling/family is bestowed with more benefits and rights.

I've seen you say this a couple of times in threads Prinz. I'm just curious..why exactly and to what extent? I mean, say homosexual couples could get married in a state wedding and be granted all the benefits and rights heterosexual couples currently get at this moment in time. But then the state granted heterosexuals free bus travel on top. Would that satisfy you? No? How about free bus and rail travel, and didn't grant that to homosexual couples? Free bus and rail travel and a miniature Irish flag on St. Patricks Day only for the heterosexual couples? Is that enough of an inequality to satisfy your criteria?

prinz

strobe wrote: »

I've seen you say this a couple of times in threads Prinz. I'm just curious..why exactly and to what extent?

...(a) because it's more beneficial to society as a whole and the State itself and (b) see above response to JimiTime.

drifting

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to bring up another thread homosexual related stuff, but......

It seems to me that Christians are in two camps on this topic:

1. Homosexuality is wrong and should not be legitimised/normalised by us in any way.

Correct.

2. Homosexuality is wrong, but I back their right to civil union. However, I stop short of approving of gay marriage.

This position is a manifest self-contradiction. By allowing any form of legal or political recognition to a homosexual relationship, you profess it as not wrong or not immoral enought to be declared wrong, which amounts to the same thing, as that which is perceived to be wrong is generally not tolerated by society.

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it, that you would support civil union, but not marriage? Is it just because you hold marriage as a sacread thing, or is there a practical reason you would be against gay marriage?

No such thing as "gay marriage." In fact there is no such thing as "gay" unless it be classified as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder for most of the last century until political pressures from the gay lobby caused it to be reclassified. It is an inherent weakness of modern democracies that any significant minority that can organize itself sufficiently can subvert both law and morals.

Vinny-Chase

Too many people in this thread using the church/ bible to justify their prejudices.

philologos

drifting wrote: »

This position is a manifest self-contradiction. By allowing any form of legal or political recognition to a homosexual relationship, you profess it as not wrong or not immoral enought to be declared wrong, which amounts to the same thing, as that which is perceived to be wrong is generally not tolerated by society.

How exactly? - The laws of State aren't meant to determine what is moral from immoral surely?

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Too many people in this thread using the church/ bible to justify their prejudices.

People are basing their moral views of sexuality on the Scriptures. This is their prerogative, and most Christian opinion is based on them. The situation we find ourselves in, is one where Christians often disagree with non-Christians (and occasionally with each other), and the only real outcome is to state that we agree to disagree.

PDN

drifting wrote: »

This position is a manifest self-contradiction. By allowing any form of legal or political recognition to a homosexual relationship, you profess it as not wrong or not immoral enought to be declared wrong, which amounts to the same thing, as that which is perceived to be wrong is generally not tolerated by society.
.

Your reasoning is totally false.

We can be like the Taliban, and want the law of the land to outlaw everything we think to be wrong according to our religious viewpoint. The problem with this is why stop at homosexuals? Since I think that having statues in churches is wrong, then should I agitate for a law banning statues in churches? If a Baptist thinks I'm wrong for praying in tongues then should they support legislation in the Dail to forbid people from praying in tongues? Where does it stop?

The fact is that reasonable people (those who don't seek to emulate the Taliban) recognise that other people have rights - even when those rights involve doing stuff that we ourselves might find distasteful or sinful.

So teetotallers recognise that pubs have a right to get planning permission and sell overpriced warm beer. Non-smokers recognise that Benson and Hedges have a right to produce and sell cigarettes. Evangelical Christians recognise that Hindus have a right to build Temples and dedicate them to Shiva. And those of us who believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian practice should recognise the right of non-Christians to enter into same-sex unions if they so choose.

Of course we should be agitating for laws that stop people harming or mistreating others. That motivates my opposition to slavery, to sex-trafficking, and to abortion. But if consenting adults want to commit sodomy with each other, eat so many bigmacs that they weigh thirty stone, watch mindless talent shows on TV, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I have no right to ask the law to impose my religious views on them.

Christians need to make our minds up. Do we want to live in a modern democratic society where we are free to practice our faith (which obviously allows others to live according to their faith or lack of faith)? Or do we think it is OK for one religious group to impose their standards on everyone else?

If we really think that it is OK for one religious group to impose their standards on everyone else, then we have no grounds for complaint if another religious group gets the upper hand and starts persecuting us. We reap what we sow.

Morbert

drifting wrote: »

This position is a manifest self-contradiction. By allowing any form of legal or political recognition to a homosexual relationship, you profess it as not wrong or not immoral enought to be declared wrong, which amounts to the same thing, as that which is perceived to be wrong is generally not tolerated by society.

The bit in bold is not true. Our society is a secular society, and what we tolerate and do not tolerate is therefore defined by secularism. You may not like that this is the case, but it is the case, and this bill is a testament to that. It is also why we tolerate homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, the use of contraceptives, and Wiccans.

No such thing as "gay marriage." In fact there is no such thing as "gay" unless it be classified as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder for most of the last century until political pressures from the gay lobby caused it to be reclassified. It is an inherent weakness of modern democracies that any significant minority that can organize itself sufficiently can subvert both law and morals.

In order for it to be classed as a mental disorder, there must be a scientific reason to classify it as a mental disorder. Otherwise, it is no more a disorder than the desire to eat ketchup sandwiches.

drifting

Morbert wrote: »

The bit in bold is not true. Our society is a secular society, and what we tolerate and do not tolerate is therefore defined by secularism. You may not like that this is the case, but it is the case, and this bill is a testament to that. It is also why we tolerate homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, the use of contraceptives, and Wiccans.

The question was asked, and answered, on the personal basis of what an individual tolerates and perceives as wrong. It is inconsistent and hypocritical for an individual to say that homosexuality is wrong on the one hand, but approve forms of social toleration on the other. This is what I find so repugnant about the attitude of many churches today. The sheer hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The supposed "secularity" of society is a myth. There are merely competing religious amd moral principles at play.

In order for it to be classed as a mental disorder, there must be a scientific reason to classify it as a mental disorder. Otherwise, it is no more a disorder than the desire to eat ketchup sandwiches.

Agreed, but whereas ketchup sandwiches are inherently natural, homosexuality is inherently unnatural even according to purely biological principles, along with many other such compulsions e.g. a morbid desire to become fat, or thin, so raises a presumption of mental disorder even before any "scientific principles" are brought into the picture.

PDN

drifting wrote: »

The question was asked, and answered, on the personal basis of what an individual tolerates and perceives as wrong. It is inconsistent and hypocritical for an individual to say that homosexuality is wrong on the one hand, but approve forms of social toleration on the other. This is what I find so repugnant about the attitude of many churches today. The sheer hypocrisy is overwhelming.

You're making the same leap of logic again. You are claiming a contradiction where none exists.

It is perfectly consistent to believe that a behaviour is wrong, but to support people's legal right to behave that way and to have the same human rights as the rest of society.

drifting

PDN wrote: »

Your reasoning is totally false.

We can be like the Taliban, and want the law of the land to outlaw everything we think to be wrong according to our religious viewpoint. The problem with this is why stop at homosexuals? Since I think that having statues in churches is wrong, then should I agitate for a law banning statues in churches? If a Baptist thinks I'm wrong for praying in tongues then should they support legislation in the Dail to forbid people from praying in tongues? Where does it stop?

The fact is that reasonable people (those who don't seek to emulate the Taliban) recognise that other people have rights - even when those rights involve doing stuff that we ourselves might find distasteful or sinful.

So teetotallers recognise that pubs have a right to get planning permission and sell overpriced warm beer. Non-smokers recognise that Benson and Hedges have a right to produce and sell cigarettes. Evangelical Christians recognise that Hindus have a right to build Temples and dedicate them to Shiva. And those of us who believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian practice should recognise the right of non-Christians to enter into same-sex unions if they so choose.

Of course we should be agitating for laws that stop people harming or mistreating others. That motivates my opposition to slavery, to sex-trafficking, and to abortion. But if consenting adults want to commit sodomy with each other, eat so many bigmacs that they weigh thirty stone, watch mindless talent shows on TV, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I have no right to ask the law to impose my religious views on them.

Christians need to make our minds up. Do we want to live in a modern democratic society where we are free to practice our faith (which obviously allows others to live according to their faith or lack of faith)? Or do we think it is OK for one religious group to impose their standards on everyone else?

If we really think that it is OK for one religious group to impose their standards on everyone else, then we have no grounds for complaint if another religious group gets the upper hand and starts persecuting us. We reap what we sow.

I agree that you have a point, but you have taken your point far too far.

The answer I gave was that if you believe homosexuality to be wrong, then it is inconsistent for you to advocate positive steps to preserve its occurence.

You are extending my argument much further. You are making out that if an individual thinks an activity is wrong, he should approve its being banned. I did not say that that should be the case, although in the case of homosexuality, I think that it is right that it should be. I only proposed that if an individual thinks an activity is wrong, he should not vote for its preservation through legislation. To do so would be inconsistent.

Thus it would be inconsistent and hypocritical for a person who thinks pubs are immoral to approve their licensing, as he would be acting contrary to his principles. But it is not inconsistent for him to refuse to be involved in the licensing issue. He does not even have to vote for pubs to be banned, for he might suppose that pubs are a lesser evil than the alternative of secret drinking dens.

With homosexuality, however, it is difficult to see how you can take a remotely near-neutral position. If you believe that it is wrong, you must believe that it is seriously wrong, and so you would inevitably vote for legislation that forbids it. If you do not believe that it is seriously wrong, it is difficult to see how you can believe that it is wrong at all.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

So teetotallers recognise that pubs have a right to get planning permission and sell overpriced warm beer. Non-smokers recognise that Benson and Hedges have a right to produce and sell cigarettes. Evangelical Christians recognise that Hindus have a right to build Temples and dedicate them to Shiva. And those of us who believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian practice should recognise the right of non-Christians to enter into same-sex unions if they so choose.

Would you see it as inconsistant to state the above, yet oppose homosexual 'marriage'?

Of course we should be agitating for laws that stop people harming or mistreating others. That motivates my opposition to slavery, to sex-trafficking, and to abortion. But if consenting adults want to commit sodomy with each other, eat so many bigmacs that they weigh thirty stone, watch mindless talent shows on TV, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I have no right to ask the law to impose my religious views on them.

Once we enter into such a realm, from a Christian perspective, then it can be argued that the normalisation of homosexuality does in fact do harm. Letting the world get on with doing what it does is one thing, but actually being active in supporting such a thing is where I think we get into shaky ground. What I would ask is this, what does actively supporting such a step do for Christ or Christianity?

Zombrex

drifting wrote: »

I agree that you have a point, but you have taken your point far too far.

The answer I gave was that if you believe homosexuality to be wrong, then it is inconsistent for you to advocate positive steps to preserve its occurence.

You are extending my argument much further. You are making out that if an individual thinks an activity is wrong, he should approve its being banned. I did not say that that should be the case, although in the case of homosexuality, I think that it is right that it should be. I only proposed that if an individual thinks an activity is wrong, he should not vote for its preservation through legislation. To do so would be inconsistent.

Thus it would be inconsistent and hypocritical for a person who thinks pubs are immoral to approve their licensing, as he would be acting contrary to his principles. But it is not inconsistent for him to refuse to be involved in the licensing issue. He does not even have to vote for pubs to be banned, for he might suppose that pubs are a lesser evil than the alternative of secret drinking dens.

With homosexuality, however, it is difficult to see how you can take a remotely near-neutral position. If you believe that it is wrong, you must believe that it is seriously wrong, and so you would inevitably vote for legislation that forbids it. If you do not believe that it is seriously wrong, it is difficult to see how you can believe that it is wrong at all.

The flaw in your thinking is that you don't recongise that you can disagree with something while still believing that someone has a right to do it. Which is a bit silly because I'm sure you do this along with everyone else.

As a Christian I imagine you believe it is wrong that anyone worshiping any god but your God? That is after all the first commandment.

Does that mean you would not allow a Mosque to be build? Or a Buddhist temple?

You can believe it is wrong while still believing that people have the right to choose to be wrong

Morbert

drifting wrote: »

The question was asked, and answered, on the personal basis of what an individual tolerates and perceives as wrong. It is inconsistent and hypocritical for an individual to say that homosexuality is wrong on the one hand, but approve forms of social toleration on the other. This is what I find so repugnant about the attitude of many churches today. The sheer hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The supposed "secularity" of society is a myth. There are merely competing religious and moral principles at play.

If that individual adopts a secular philosophy, there is no issue of hypocrisy. They are merely differentiating between their personal moral conviction, and the secular ethical principles they feel society should be governed by. Robbing a penny sweet is not as immoral as, say, getting a group of friends together and holding a séance, but Christians have no problem with classifyng only the former as illegal.

Agreed, but whereas ketchup sandwiches are inherently natural, homosexuality is inherently unnatural even according to purely biological principles, along with many other such compulsions e.g. a morbid desire to become fat, or thin, so raises a presumption of mental disorder even before any "scientific principles" are brought into the picture.

Homosexuality is not inherently unnatural. Homosexual acts in nature are a cost-effective way of strengthening bonds and solving conflicts over food and territory without resorting to violence, which is biologically expensive. It is a strategy adopted by many primate societies. We humans might be unique in that we can be exclusively homosexual, but *shrug*, so what?

Also, ketchup sandwiches are not inherently natural. I personally find them disgusting and morally abhorrent.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you see it as inconsistant to state the above, yet oppose homosexual 'marriage'?

No, because homosexual 'marriage' in my view, denies the fundamental basis of what constitutes marriage - therefore redefining the word 'marriage'. My consistent position is that, if such a redefinition takes place, then Christians should drop the word altogether and put clear blue water between what the biblical permanent joining of a man and woman as one flesh and an unrelated temporary civic contract between two or more individuals of any gender.

In other words, I am content for us to use the term 'marriage' in churches and for the State to recognise same-sex unions that are called something else.

I can live with the State calling same-sex unions 'marriage' if we in the Church call our husband/wife unions something else.

I am not prepared to go along with a situation where we all use the same word (marriage) and thereby pretend that same-sex unions conducted by the State are the same thing as husband/wife unions that we conduct in Church.

So, you may or may not agree with my position, but I think it is consistent.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Homosexuality is not inherently unnatural
...
Also, ketchup sandwiches are not inherently natural. I personally find them disgusting and morally abhorrent.

Ketchup sandwiches are not naturally because they do not occur naturally in nature. We make them, they don't grow on trees

Homosexuality does occur naturally in nature, for various evolutionary reasons.

Not that I think there is any weight in the natural/unnatural debate (cancer occurs naturally in nature but it isn't a good thing), just pointing out the horror of ketchup sandwiches :pac:

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

... just pointing out the horror of ketchup sandwiches :pac:

I was young and needed the money (for other things). Ketchup sandwiches mmmmmh. Good times. Think this thread is going down a side track on the issue of homosexuality itself.

drifting

Wicknight wrote: »

The flaw in your thinking is that you don't recongise that you can disagree with something while still believing that someone has a right to do it. Which is a bit silly because I'm sure you do this along with everyone else.

I already pointed out the contrary in my example of lesser evils, such as drinking in public bars. So I fail to see your point.

As a Christian I imagine you believe it is wrong that anyone worshiping any god but your God? That is after all the first commandment.

Does that mean you would not allow a Mosque to be build? Or a Buddhist temple?

You can believe it is wrong while still believing that people have the right to choose to be wrong

Inevitably where there is choice given to a person under law, that choice can be used for morally good and bad, or efficient and inefficient purposes. That is self-evident.

As far as human law is concerned, the worse the law, the greater the degree of moral degeneracy is permitted. Law also includes the concept of enforcement. If the law cannot be enforced, effectively there is no law.

As far as divine law is concerned, it cannot be changed. Homosexuality deserves death (Lev. 20;10). Spiritual death is therefore inevitable.

If one really believes in a divine law against homosexuality to exist, then naturally one would want to see the law effected into human law too, even if others seek to prevent it happening.

Long Term Louth

I consider myself christian in my ways, I also appreciate equality in any society and the freedom of choice, if people want to get married or live together whatever their persuasion, then I feel that I or no democratic society should impinge on their wishes.

Zombrex

drifting wrote: »

I already pointed out the contrary in my example of lesser evils, such as drinking in public bars. So I fail to see your point.

What, in a Christian sense, are "lesser" evils?

You believe that some people should be allowed to commit some evils but others should be stopped from committing other evils?

What are you using to determine which is which?

drifting wrote: »

As far as human law is concerned, the worse the law, the greater the degree of moral degeneracy is permitted. Law also includes the concept of enforcement. If the law cannot be enforced, effectively there is no law.

As far as divine law is concerned, it cannot be changed. Homosexuality deserves death (Lev. 20;10). Spiritual death is therefore inevitable.

But all sinners deserve spiritual death, don't they?

Can you point out the sinners that don't deserve spiritual death? So what is the point in singling out homosexuality? Again what in your mind makes something a "lesser" evil?

drifting wrote: »

If one really believes in a divine law against homosexuality to exist, then naturally one would want to see the law effected into human law too, even if others seek to prevent it happening.

Again your logic doesn't hold because some believe it is not humanities place to try and make everyone sin free. Such a feat is probably impossible.

drifting

Wicknight wrote: »

What, in a Christian sense, are "lesser" evils?

Bad habits that don't necessarily violate the cardinal rules of morality. The Levitical law had a sliding scale of punishments for moral wickedness, just as modern criminal law.

You believe that some people should be allowed to commit some evils but others should be stopped from committing other evils?

What are you using to determine which is which?

The law of Moses, which, in fact, formed the de facto moral standard for all European and North American legal systems until the latter part of the 20th century.

But all sinners deserve spiritual death, don't they?

Not all. John the apostle says in 1 John that there are some sins that lead to death. Others can be prayed over and forgiven. The sin of Christ rejection cannot be forgiven.

Can you point out the sinners that don't deserve spiritual death?

Those who believe in Christ.

So what is the point in singling out homosexuality? Again what in your mind makes something a "lesser" evil?

Homosexuality is incompatible with belief, as it at the top of the scale of moral wickedness. Homosexuals cannot believe, unless they repent.

Again your logic doesn't hold because some believe it is not humanities place to try and make everyone sin free. Such a feat is probably impossible.

It is the place of law to create a society where people may believe. Homosexuality is heavily geared towards permitting the corruption of youth, but it is by no means the only repugnant social sin permitted under law. In fact the whole of society these days is geared towards the promotion of hedonistic pleasures. This is why so few believe.