News-Record.com

I have never seen what is so "wrong" about gay marriage. I've known several homosexual couples over the years, both male and female. I never could see how their devotion could be seen as a threat to anyone.

Certainly, no gay couple has ever contributed to the problem of unwed parenthood, which I expect is a far more serious threat to "traditional family units." So far, the only reasons anyone has expressed against gay marriage has simply boiled down to simple bigotry and prejudice.

Maybe one day, more people will learn to see past their fears and not be upset over people finding "the wrong kind" of love.

I believe there will be a day where the rights of all people, GLBT included, will be recognized; without amending the Constitution! Whether I live to see it (I am 40 yo now), is yet to be discerned.

What far, far too many people fail to realize is that the union of two persons of same gender is that it is NOT about religion! Rather, it is about rights! GLBT people are not asking for recognition by ANY religious group. What is being sought is the same RIGHTS held by people of opposite gender who are married. What is so unusual is that in some states, the is the concept of "common law marriage." Yet, this does not apply to GLBT people! What a travesty!

I have always been fascinated at why more of the legal professin have not endorsed GLBT "marriage" ideals. Think of the money to be made from the divorce cases! I mean if the break-ups are as high as many would have society believe in the gay community, then there is a proverbial "gold mine" to be made in this aspect alone!

Just musing!

Shalom

People who engage in homosexual behavior already have the right to marry. A single,homosexual man can marry any single woman who will agree to marry him. He is merely choosing not to exercise a right that he already has. His rights are not being denied. He has the same rights that I do.

What he wants is a new "right". That new "right" has to be debated and decided in the public square and I do have the right to participate in that process.

Hmph. So you'd have no problem with a guy marrying someone he would never truly love, just to satisfy a cultural norm. That's right fine, man.

I do agree that the issue should be debated by the public. Which is why I'm glad the attempt to end this debate by making it a defining principle of the nation failed.

ECUman, I agree, the issue is up and out for public debate/discourse.

However, I fail to see the logic behind the statement, "A single,homosexual man can marry any single woman who will agree to marry him. He is merely choosing not to exercise a right that he already has." That is not what the debate is about.

The debate is about whether or not two people of same gender should be given the right to marry whom they are in love with/choose. And thereby, allowed the same rights as those persons who marry someone of opposite gender.

Remember, this is not an issue about religion or one's faith. Rather, it is about civil rights for a segment of society that is being denied their Constitutional and civil rights.

So, discuss/debate or whatever; however, just make sure that the REAL issue is being discussed in whatever fashion one so chooses.

Shalom

I did not say someone SHOULD marry a person of the opposite sex that he/she does not love. I am merely pointing out that they have the RIGHT to do that just as I do. What gay marriage advocates want is a NEW right. There is no discrimination against them in the EXISTING right to marry another person of the opposite sex.

Again, the failed logic of the debate ECUman. As such, I find it no longer necessary to discuss this issue with you.

However, at such time as the logic of the debate at hand becomes correct, then I will enter into debate again.

Shalom

Darryl:

If you want to show be where my logic breaks down, I'll be delighted to consider your view. SAYING my logic has failed, does not make it so.

ECUMAN, it seems to me that you are avoiding addressing the point of the argument. I thought for sure that the debate should be about the right to marry someone you love. If you were told that you can marry anyone you want, provided they are of the same race as you (which was the law not too long ago), how would you view the situation if you happened to fall in love with someone of the "wrong" race?

The situation here is very similar. Why should a woman be told she can marry any man she wants if she's in love with a woman? That makes as much sense as Henry Ford saying "You can have a car of any color you want so long as it's black."

Eric:

I love my dog. Can I marry him and have it recognized by the state of NC?

You know what I mean. It looks like you have no serious responses left in this debate that you said should take place. Or do you actually believe that beastiality is the same thing as love between two people of the same sex?

Eric;

Alright, let's take beastiality out of the debate for the time being.

If love and marriage between two men is good, wouldn't it be even better between three men or four or five?

"Again, the failed logic of the debate ECUman. As such, I find it no longer necessary to discuss this issue with you.".........
i thought debate was bring to the discussion what you believed and thereby debated with others of different conviction/perspectives. sounds to me like this individual above wants to set the rules (his rules) and unless and until you play in his sandbox, he won't play..hmmmmm?
doesn't nature itself show the order of things in pollination ?

ECUMAN: Your latest question is interesting. I have no idea how a "multiple" marriage would work or how well. I recall reading a book by Robert Heinlein that wrapped its plot around that very concept. His views were interesting, but whether our society would be better served by such "eternal families," I don't know.

Still, I'm not aware of anyone who has proposed such a concept. So why try to drag that across the path? If you are opposed to gay marriage, why not state your side of the argument instead of using strawmen?

Eric:

This is not a strawman argument. The central question is how and who defines marriage.

You have premises in your argument that have flaws. I am merely pointing out where your argument leads us. I can give my argument if you want me to, but I was focusing on yours for the time being.

My argument is that society must define what marriage is, and what purpose it serves. I think you agree, in the sense that you stated that there must be debate if marriage's definition is to change.

You state correctly that if society can define marriage in some way other than what we are used to, it can define it any way that comes to mind -- so long as the majority of the society's members are agreeable to it.

I state that I have no quarrel with the idea of gay marriage... so my vote would go to expanding the current definition to say "any pair of unrelated, competent adults." I think doing this would be good for the folks who want to marry but currently can't, and I see no way it can harm society.

So let's hear your reasons against the idea.

Is private affection is the true reason for marriage? If so, why bother with all those silly inheritances, insurance beneficiaries and other ramifications?

I would like to see heterosexual couples give up these protections, and volunteer their marriages no longer be "legally" recognized, just to put everyone on the same playing field financially. But even those, like me, who are heterosexual and married but who call for gay rights in civil unions, won't do that.
It isn't wise financially nor culturally, as ugly as it seems. It has nothing to do with whether the government approves of my marriage nor whether god or the church would have.

It's more than a sacred cow; it's about favorable treatment for a certain sexual orientation (and some would argue race and class---many young black women today do not prefer to marry, ever). "Show me the hegemony!"

If we choose to have legally-sanctioned marriage (and don't start with that canard about propagating the tax base; states recognize plenty of infertile couples, young and old, as legally married), we must accept the messy, uncomfortable fact that the definition of marriage itself, its composition and purpose, have never been absolute, set-in-stone, or eternal. History has had various ways to understand it. Even on this continent! But, but not in "our" society, someone will say. Whose is the "ours" invoked? Who makes those decisons? When did this society begin, and who was included? Pre-Revolutionary? Shaker?

Courts decide. Legislatures. Good and fine. Let's do it by the books, if we choose to have government involved at all. But let's not gloss over the fact that we have at this time a caste system whereby gay couples are put at a disadvantage not just socially, but economically becasue they cannot protect their loved ones' interests in matters of wills, health insurance and taxes. It may be "new law", or it may be reinterpretation of existing constitutional rights, but answer this squarely: is outright discrimination against people for sexual orientation what we want enshrined in our laws or even in the Constitution itself?
We don't allow people to own slaves. We are anti-slave owner.
We don't allow dogs to vote. We're not anti-dog, they just aren't human and thus are not entitled to all the rights extended to citizens and residents (even visitors) who are.

Where do gays and lesbians fall on this spectrum for us?

Eric:

There are many arguments I could give or link. I'll start with just a few. The reason why the vast majority of homosexuals people want gay marriage laws is not that they intend to get married. It is because gay marriage laws would lend legitimacy and acceptance to their lifestyle. According to surveys among the gay community, "committed partners" may still have numerous sexual relationships with other people during the course of a year (the number of eight other partners per year comes to mind but my memory could be failing me). That is not marriage or committment in my mind!

Also, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently unhealthy. There would still be numerous medical afflictions amoung those practicing homosexual activity even if AIDS were cured tomorrow, especially among men. To be blount, the anus is not supposed to act as a sexual organ. While, I would never hunt down or advocate arresting people who engage in homosexual sex, the activity should at least not be encouraged. I think gay marriage would do that through granting it legitimacy.

That's it for now.

Hm. First off, you are looking only at things you have dug up regarding male homosexuals. And you are assuming that by and large, gay males are very unlikely to actually stay monogamous if they go to the trouble of marrying.

You know, of the few gay men I've known, none of them struck me as being so stupid that they would be so tomcat-like when it comes to sex. I have to wonder just how accurate your survey was in that regard. Also, I wonder if you would be so keen on saying heterosexual marriage was not worthwhile because of so many straight men who cheat after getting married. You are aware that that is also a pretty common problem, correct?

Further, you are probably aware that the heterosexual lifestyle holds just as many potential pitfalls with regard to STDs. So far as I've heard, there are no viruses or bacteria that prey only on homosexual humans.

So beyond your prejudices regarding male gays, are there any real problems to be seen from two women or two men being legally married?

Ecuman-

Physiologically speaking, the skin itself is the largest organ and pretty important for sexual arousal necessary (or not?) for satisfactory completion of coitus.

Or is yours an injunction for copulation strictly for population: make sure the properly approved and only those properly approved organs go exactly where they are supposed to go; no detours, no creativity. Did Yahweh issue a sex manual? I know Hinduism has a lot of bases covered...Do enlighten us on the where and when and how, if you may, without being too graphic, please. Technical language is enough.

Perhaps we should all become automatons, a la Duchamp's The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass)? (Madonna's exoskeletal costumes are a kindred metaphor.) Sometimes I think the bizarre fetish for Viagra, et al., aims for precisely this.

I also wonder if there has ever been a study of the "heterosexual lifestyle"? I mean, ECUMAN mentions a study of gay men in committed relationships who continue to have encounters with other sex partners. Does anyone know what percentage of srtaight men who live with a woman without being married ever have sex outside the relationship?

Is this sort of datum really a valid point when talking about updating the definition of marrige? It's just that asking how unmarried men act really doesn't seem to address the issue.

You know, I just realized something interesting about ECUMAN's post. The way he worded it, it seems that this survey he mentioned says that ALL gay men cheat on their significant other. Now that would be a startling piece of information if it were true. Somehow, I find it pretty unbelievable. If he would be so kind as to post a link to the study he's talking about, I think we would all find that most interesting.

Interesting dialogue. Ecumen, I agree with you on this issue, and you made some very salient points, but unless the Word of God is held up as the only source of true moral Law and virtue, we have no more of a leg to stand on than our opponents – who have no leg; for relativism is a legless moral amoeba.

Indeed, society should not DEFINE marriage or determine any moral or spiritual truth or virtue. Society’s only legitimate response is to conform to God’s immutable and absolute standards; IF – IF it is to survive and be just, happy and prosperous. The trouble with those who advocate letting courts, legislatures and Hollywood stars determine these things is that they are dangerously myopic; they do not see the deadly long term effects of pre-marital sex, multiple partners, of raging STD’s, drug use, perverted sex, moral relativism (chaos) – because their perception is blinded by lust and spiritual darkness.

I’ve been listening to Handel’s Messiah on the way to work for the past week, being greatly uplifted by the spiritual power of his magnificent and God-inspired work. There is an aria that contains a passage from Isaiah 60 which reads: “For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people . . .” Our nation has been enshrouded by a fog of darkness, and those who advocate godless and sinful practices, of whatever nature, are simply pressing ever closer to the precipice of judgment and ruin.

Darkness, as applied to the human situation, means that man is unable to see the true nature of what lies ahead, or even what is happening at the present. It is ONLY when the light of Christ illumes his understanding by loosing the bonds of sin’s wretched shackles that the truth sets free. Otherwise, sin, like an electric wire, is so powerful that it is impossible to turn it loose before it fries you. Only the grace of God can overcome sin’s tenacious hold.

So the issue is NOT what fickle, fallen society thinks, but what God declares in Holy Scripture. This is precisely why He inspired its writers to write it down, and for the Hebrew and Christian caretakers to go to such extremes to preserve it as it was received. Yea, yea, I know there were glosses and transmission glitches here and there; but the Dead Sea Scrolls proved in a big way that what we have today is essentially, in all matters of faith and practice, the same as was received by the Qumran devotees. And even in the NT writings, there are no transmission or copyist deviations that affect any important doctrine which does not have corroborating passages elsewhere. With intelligent and faith-filled illumination, the Word of God is the all-sufficient guide for all human concerns, if not specifically, in principle.

And so, the Word of God, by universally blessing and advocating heterosexual marriage and condemning homosexual acts, declares that homosexual marriage is cursed by God and will bring ruin upon any nation that practices or advocates it. One-man-one-woman marriage is holy to the Lord. St. Paul declares it to be a picture of Christ and His Church. It sets the tenor for ALL of life. Any substitute or alternative model DOES indeed adversely affect marriage, by tacitly challenging and devaluing God’s stated will. The openness to other marital forms or arrangements in the preceding entries shows where we are headed by advocating and blessing gay marriage – into the moral pit.

If we want to assuage God’s wrath we had better not only reject homosexuality generally, but address the sad state of heterosexual marriage as well. Our whole society is marching blithely into the valley of ruin and despair. Cheap, banal and degrading media fare only makes moral soup out of the public mind. This moral poison has seeped into virtually all our institutions and social relations. Tossing the gay marriage idea around like some kind of intellectual beach ball is most precarious, for it is really more like a test tube of nitro glycerin. “For the wages (results) of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

zyxcquh sixerdl vgpq grzlosj kzxup kcjo ngwfyjcp