How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[Joann Raytar]

Before we state that Jesus loves and forgives everyone and everything. He did not forgive or pardon Judas or the "other" thief on the cross. And do not forget what Jesus is to do on his return. I believe it is written, He shall come not as a Lamb but as a Lion and he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

Note: No where is it written he shall come to forgive the quick and the dead.

Chip

Our take:

http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-jesus.htm
Presbyterians believe Jesus was...
Fully human, fully God.
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God:
preaching good news to the poor and release to the captives,
teaching by word and deed
and blessing the children,
healing the sick
and binding up the brokenhearted,
eating with outcasts,
forgiving sinners,
and calling all to repent and believe the gospel.
Unjustly condemned for blasphemy and sedition,
Jesus was crucified,
suffering the depths of human pain and giving his life for the sins of the world.
God raised Jesus from the dead,
vindicating his sinless life,
breaking the power of sin and evil,
delivering us from death to life eternal.

On the subject of homosexuality:

http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-homosexual.htm

Persons who manifest homosexual behavior must be treated with the profound respect and pastoral tenderness due all people of God. There can be no place within the Christian faith for the response to homosexual persons of mingled contempt, hatred, and fear that is called homophobia.

Homosexual persons are encompassed by the searching love of Christ. The church must turn from its fear and hatred to move toward the homosexual community in love and to welcome homosexual inquirers to its congregations. It should free them to be candid about their identity and convictions, and it should also share honestly and humbly with them in seeking the vision of God's intention for the sexual dimensions of their lives. . . .

In 1978, a Presbyterian General Assembly declared that:

". . . there is no legal, social, or moral justification for denying homosexual persons access to the basic requirements of human social existence . . ." (3)

In 1987, the General Assembly called:

". . . for the elimination . . . of laws governing the private sexual behavior between consenting adults [and the passage] of laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations . . ."

The Presbyterian church does try to hold to its historical stand regarding sexuality:

Homosexuality presents a particular problem for the church. It seems to be contrary to the teaching of scripture. It seems to repudiate the heterosexual process which gave us life. Further, many believe that such an orientation can be changed simply by personal decision or by the creation of healthy environments for the young. The church though should be aware of the partial nature of our knowledge of homosexuality. For instance, whether or not sexual orientation is something unchosen and unchangeable for most people is a matter of crucial significance which continues to be unsettled among scientists or ethicists. The church should be sensitive to the difficulty of rejecting a persons's sexual orientation without rejecting the person. It should be open to more light on what goes into shaping one's sexual preferences and reexamine its life and teaching in relation to people who are seeking affirmation and needing acceptance and who are apparently not free to change their orientations."

[Spexvet]

I can't speak for Him, but I feel sure that Jesus would not only support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, I feel sure that he would condem those who engage in such practices to Hell.

Chip,
There's a difference between your two assertions. Would He inform people of their peril, and allow them to choose, with the confidence He had that they would go to hell? Or would He try to stop them from doing it in the first place? That's what the whole debate is about, isn't it? Isn't that truly the difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

[Shutterbug]

With that same theory we can condem hetrosexuality for passing off other STD's.

What His closest students said is what His closest students said, not what's in the Gospel. IMHO, it's risky to assume that what they said is what He thought or wanted. It could be that they were wrong in their interpretation of Him, or had their own feelings on the matter.

Well Spexvet, at least you are thinking about this :)

I believe I addressed your first point. Only Monogamy is safe. Fornication, adultery and homosexuality are condemned for this very reason (they are dangerous to us and not in our best interest).

Your second point is going pretty far out on the limb. If Jesus' closest companions, the ones he instructed the most, chose as leaders of his people and poured out holy spirit upon at Pentecost of 33 did not get it, could it be possible for ANYONE to attain to salvation? I think not.

We MUST assume they had it right. Otherwise we have no guide and are at the mercy of our own conscience to determine right from wrong. Remember this very issue is what lead Adam and Eve on the path of destruction.



Note to Chip Anderson: I'm enjoying your postings. Succinct, but keeping us on the right track :D


shutterbug

[Shutterbug]

At this point in this thread, it seem logical to ask: Is Satan a real person? If he is (and I believe he is) is it not logical to assume he would use religion to "blind the eyes" of the people? Fighting fire with fire, so to speak?

I think we see evidence of this very thing. World wide, there are over 2000 different forms of religion. Are they all acceptable to God? Indeed, CAN they be? How many can?

Notice the response of some religions to their leaders engaging in unscriptural and unscrpulous activities. Do they expell them? No, just move them to some other area where they are not known. Is that responsible behavior, or is it a conforming to Satan's plan?

Just thought I'd throw that out to see what you all think.

:)

[Spexvet]

Well Spexvet, at least you are thinking about this :)

I believe I addressed your first point. Only Monogamy is safe. Fornication, adultery and homosexuality are condemned for this very reason (they are dangerous to us and not in our best interest).

Correction: The first point was For-Life's, but I agree with it. "Only monogamy is safe?" Why do you feel that monogamy and homosexuality are mutually exclusive?

Your second point is going pretty far out on the limb. If Jesus' closest companions, the ones he instructed the most, chose as leaders of his people and poured out holy spirit upon at Pentecost of 33 did not get it, could it be possible for ANYONE to attain to salvation? I think not.

We MUST assume they had it right. Otherwise we have no guide and are at the mercy of our own conscience to determine right from wrong. Remember this very issue is what lead Adam and Eve on the path of destruction.

In the history of Christianity, there have been numerous occasions where individuals or groups of people have made policy or done things for reasons other than the benefit of our spiritual being. As you, yourself, posted, the wording of the Bible has been altered:

Oh, one more point. Your reference to the scripture in Jon 8.7 is a common one, but that scripture does not appear in the oldest surviving texts. There is strong evidence that it was added later by an over-zealous scribe or possibly added to help prove a line of thinking that was popular at the time. Regardless of the reason, it was added and so not included in proper scripture cannon. The better translations now leave it out altogether, or change the color or prints size with footnotes about it's doubtful place in inspired scripture. Just FYI :)

So do we truly know?

Thoughtfully,
Spexvet

[Shutterbug]

In the history of Christianity, there have been numerous occasions where individuals or groups of people have made policy or done things for reasons other than the benefit of our spiritual being. As you, yourself, posted, the wording of the Bible has been altered:

Actually I gave evidence that very LITTLE had been changed, and mostly just punctuation. I think the Bible is reliable. If not, none of us has a chance.

[chm2023]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143140,00.html

Now here's a pretty story. Imagine the self righteousness that drives people to this. Nasty bunch.

[Shutterbug]

Now here's a pretty story. Imagine the self righteousness that drives people to this. Nasty bunch.

I'll go along with your assesment of this one. Why punish the kids for the mistakes of the parents?

shutterbug

[1968]

Given the recent discussions regarding the Supreme Court's decision on capital punishment and comments regarding the Ten Commandments, I thought it might be appropriate to resurrect this thread.

From CNN.com: California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/ga....ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. [see link for full report]

[chm2023]

Given the recent discussions regarding the Supreme Court's decision on capital punishment and comments regarding the Ten Commandments, I thought it might be appropriate to resurrect this thread.

From CNN.com: California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/ga....ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. [see link for full report]

This was widely predicted, which is why there is a push for a federal Constitutional amendment. This seems to have lost steam as Bush realizes he needs moderate R and democrat votes for real issues.

[Spexvet]

Heaven forbid! The next thing you know, they'll allow Catholics and Protestants to marry!;)

[For-Life]

I do not like gay marriages because I am still in denial that there are homosexuals. It is obvious that the communist are bring this into our society so that when we are not looking the USSR can be revived and will take over the world and paint us pink.

[Rim Ranger]

Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong. However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned. Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.

[Spexvet]

Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong. However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned. Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.

While every opinion is valid, and surely you admit that morals vary from person to person - the question is how does someone else's (by your assertion) "immorality" hurt you? Using your argument, I think eating chocolate is physically and morally wrong. Does that mean you should be prohibitted from eating chocolate?

[Rim Ranger]

Two men or two women getting married does not hurt me directly. Why is that relevant to the issue of whether it is right or wrong?

[Spexvet]

Two men or two women getting married does not hurt me directly. Why is that relevant to the issue of whether it is right or wrong?

Primarily because that's the title of the thread. Beyond that, if it doesn't hurt you, why do you feel compelled to forbid others getting married? If homosexuals felt that it's immoral for heterosexuals to marry each other, should they be prohibitted?

[spartus]

My wife and I very nearly went to San Francisco to get married during all the gay marriage hoo-hah last year, for a number of reasons. Mostly, we wanted to show solidarity with the people getting married, but we'd been putting off actually getting married for too many years, and, as a bonus, a trip to SF is always nice.

As far as gay marriage, I really don't get the opposition to it. What business is it of mine--or anyone's--what two consenting adults do in their private lives, as long as they're not hurting anyone? I mean, twenty years ago, gay people were just too promiscuous and it was SICK and WRONG. Now, they want to codify their monogamous relationships in the eyes of the state, and that's now WRONG and SICK. If the idea of what they do is personally repugnant to you, you should start crusading against morbidly obese or ugly people getting married too, in case that grosses you out.

Sheesh. If the word "marriage" is what gives everyone hives, give it a new name, and grant the couples precisely the same legal status as hetero married couples. I'm talking about hospital visitation rights, retirement/pensions, tax status, and the prohibition on being compelled to testify against your spouse. Calling it "marriage", I think, is pretty far down the list of priorities.

[chm2023]

Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong. However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned. Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.

I see. So being homosexual means being condemned to a sexless existence, in order to meet your standards. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Rim Ranger]

if it doesn't hurt you, why do you feel compelled to forbid others getting married? If homosexuals felt that it's immoral for heterosexuals to marry each other, should they be prohibitted?

Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it? And your other question suggests that you think nothing is immoral in a vacuum. ...that morality is just one persons opinion. Isn't it possible that some things are absolutely right and some things absolutely wrong? Another word for "moral" is "good" or "right". Some things are just right. A male body and a female body together in marriage is right physically and morally.

[Rim Ranger]

I see. So being homosexual means being condemned to a sexless existence, in order to meet your standards. Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't see how it's a sexless existence. I hear a lot of people talk about equal rights. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That IS an equal right. Let's not confuse that with FAIR. Some people are born rich and some people are born poor. Do they enjoy the same quality of life? Not at all. Should we create a law that says the government should give all poor people a new Mercedes and buy them a house?

[shanbaum]

Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it?
...

1. "Caring about something" and "prohibiting behavior you believe to be immoral" are two completely distinct classes of object.

2. It may be the case that there is an absolute truth; however, it may also be the case that there isn't. If there is an absolute truth, it is indisputable that reasonable people differ over what it is (for instance, I disagree with your assertion that homosexual sex is immoral). Generally, people's beliefs about morality are coupled to their religious beliefs. While that is not invariably true, we have in this country historically made a point of decoupling the power of the state from the enforcement of religious doctrine. I believe that this is a) the law; and b) to our benefit.

3. The assertion that everyone has a right "to marry someone of the opposite sex" is as compelling as the now-abandoned constraint on personal liberty that used to afford everyone the right "to marry someone of the opposite sex and same race".

4. You attempt to compare a non-existent "right of equality of economic status" with the disputed right of same-sex couples to marry. This is meaningful only for those who believe in neither.

[Spexvet]

Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it?

Why not live and let live? Why can't you accept that one man's trash is another man's treasure?

And your other question suggests that you think nothing is immoral in a vacuum.

No, I have my own set of unique morals. But I believe that morals are as varied and individual as people. And I will not impose my morals on you. (You're welcome.) And I would expect that you would not impose your morals on me, in return.

...that morality is just one persons opinion.

It is. Without question. Absolutely.

Isn't it possible that some things are absolutely right and some things absolutely wrong?

No. Facts are absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect, everything else is opinion. And that's a fact. :p Just by the way there is disagreement over "morals" should tell you that there is no absolute.
Can you cite an example of something that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

Another word for "moral" is "good" or "right".

Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morally
Because morals change from person to person, their definition of "good" or "right" changes as well.

Some things are just right.

To whom?

A male body and a female body together in marriage is right physically and morally.

That's your opinion. But is your personal preference enough to preclude others from marrying someone of the same gender?

[Jacqui]

I have stayed out of this conversation until now, for personal reasons.

There are some people, like Rim Ranger, who know they are absolutely right about this all the time. There are others of us, like myself, that have been there and know better.

[Rim Ranger]

1. "Caring about something" and "prohibiting behavior you believe to be immoral" are two completely distinct classes of object.

If I don't care about you, and your homosexual activity doesn't hurt me, then why should I get involved in the issue? I wouldn't get involved.

But I do care and so I set myself up for ridicule by saying that homosexuality is bad for you. Because I believe it is and I want the best for all people. These days its easier to be a vocal homo than to be a vocal hetero.

[Rim Ranger]

Why not live and let live?

That's the easy way but it's too selfish. If you see your brother or friend hurting himself, should you not speak up?

Facts are absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect, everything else is opinion. Can you give an example...

Is there a God? Regardless of your opinion or mine, there is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to that question. One of us is RIGHT and one of us is WRONG.