Everything BUT marriage

[Snorri1234]

2.) Marriage. Not a same sex couple. But the lawful wedded bliss of taking another as your spouse. Recognized by the government (whichever one that may be) to be a lawful union. {I can't believe I have to define what a marriage is} Post proof Nero was married to another man, not having sex with, not living with, not shopping for Revlon with, but married to. As far as Saul goes, give me a break. Nothing more that gay propaganda. It's unfounded, unsubstantiated and unproven not to mention ridiculous. BUT even if this were to be true (which I highly doubt) when he converted to Christianity God changed his name to Paul. Before the conversion he even persecuted Christians. What Saul/Paul may have done before his conversion is irrelevant, he had been forgiven.

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

Does it actually matter whether the government recognizes a marriage to be a legal union or not?

[thegreekdog]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

[PLAYER57832]

But, that is no more reason to deny people the right to live how they wish than it is to deny people to worship how they wish, to eat at the restaurants they wish (providing they pay, of course), etc.

Get out of the dark ages... the time when we burn heretics is long past. Imagine .. Protestants have even lived side-by-side with Roman Catholics for a few years. Jews and Muslims seem to do fine as well. So, homosexuals are next. So, you don't like their lifestyle. Either go bury YOURSELF in a mountain hideaway or decide that you have the right to teach your kids, to talk in your church, but not to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

I can see why atheists are for same sex marriage, but for you to try to use the Bible and Christianity to promote it is indefensible. You completely ignore specific verses which define it as sin, which is disobedience against God. I'm sure you'll get a lot of atheists in here to defend your position and you'll enjoy the temporary praise. Enjoy it for the short time it lasts in these forums. There is absolutely no way you are a true Christian. A theist - yes, but definitely not a follower of the Bible.

There are many things that are against God that we accept, both in our society and tolerate as a church. The key is how we deal with these things. Christ gave us a specific model. We are to teach our children the way they should go. We are to live our lives according to our laws and support each other in the Christian community to do so in a better way. If someone stands up in church and says "I am homosexual and I want to be married in this church", the members, the church has every right to argue, debate, say "no", to oust the person ... etc.

When it comes to non-Christians, though Chrit's message is equally clear. We are to communicate, talk of Christ, but if someone does not wish to listen, if their hearts are not open, then we don't continue to pound them with words or the Bible. We can help them with their needs, pray and hope that eventually they will believe. The only negative action we are truly allowed is separation. That is for OUR protection. If you feel you are harmed by homosexuality, then you have every right to remove yourself. You do not have the right to insist that other people live as you (or I) wish.

If, as you claim, God's words are reason for people to show hatred toward homosexualities -- and make no mistake, that IS what is being promoted, that IS the "slippery slope" that exists right now, today, that IS the line that is being crossed daily by those who oppose homosexuality, if you feel that is OK, then you are no different from those who took the same stance agains Jews, Hindus, Pagans, and even people of other Christian denominations.

I have already said that I don't believe homosexuality is "OK", but this is not about what I believe, it is about what is tolerated in our secular society.

[PLAYER57832]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

OH PLEASE!

The key is, of course consent. A twelve year old cannot offer consent.

As for the "multiple wives" bit, the real issue is children -- but that is another topic. Human beings can make such distinctions.

[got tonkaed]

Jay needs to realize that in terms of marriage being recognized by "the state" that "the state" is a relatively modern construct, and certainly would have applied only very loosely in the time period he is getting his biblical basis from.

[Frigidus]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

I would argue the second example is, but the first example violates the age of consent. Anything (barring incest, for different reasons) that doesn't involve those that can't give consent is fine in my book.

[thegreekdog]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

OH PLEASE!

The key is, of course consent. A twelve year old cannot offer consent.

As for the "multiple wives" bit, the real issue is children -- but that is another topic. Human beings can make such distinctions.

I was talking mostly about the multiple wives. The cases on this have nothing to do with children and has everything to do with Supreme Court justices being squemish about multiple wives.

[Frigidus]

Jay needs to realize that in terms of marriage being recognized by "the state" that "the state" is a relatively modern construct, and certainly would have applied only very loosely in the time period he is getting his biblical basis from.

Not to mention that marriage, in various forms, predated Christianity by quite a bit.

[Snorri1234]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

Actually, that's not true and also not the point I was trying to make. I've already said that the slippery slope argument is retarded for several reasons.

I'm simply pointing out here that marriage being between one man and one woman has been tradition for very little time. And even in that little time it has been subject to quite a lot of change.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not moot my friend. 2) Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

You can start with ancient Greece and Rome, add in some various other cultures too numerous to name. In many cultures, sex and marriage are not at all or only loosely related. In some tribes, a man may "marry" the leg of a chief to gain power, for example.

As for your other arguments,

No, the Bible does not say you cannot condemn homosexuality. Nor is that what I said. What I said is that telling people they are "going to hell" is not the most effective means of dialogue. I said you don't have the right to keep homosexuals from living their lives, simply because it is not a lifestyle you approve of. The only exception is if the "lifestyle" causes harm to other individuals.

You have not shown how this law will cause harm to anyone other than those who marry in a way you dislike.

[PLAYER57832]

As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

OH PLEASE!

The key is, of course consent. A twelve year old cannot offer consent.

As for the "multiple wives" bit, the real issue is children -- but that is another topic. Human beings can make such distinctions.

I was talking mostly about the multiple wives. The cases on this have nothing to do with children and has everything to do with Supreme Court justices being squemish about multiple wives.

The problem with multiple wives is that you get multiple children. Of course, you can argue that we have this already since we no longer label kids born "out of wedlock" as "bastards", etc.

At any rate, the basic point is your parallel is not true. Juveniles are distinct. Encouraging people to have more children than they can possibly tend or support is not a good thing for society. Beyond that, it gets complex and probably ought to be debated elsewhere. I am just saying there is reason enough to count those issues as seperate.

[got tonkaed]

I cant really find where the constitution talks about the right to marriage as it were.

I guess you could find a very weak argument from the 9th amendment, but if thats all there is, you need another source and its still quite weak at best.

[thegreekdog]

Jay needs to realize that in terms of marriage being recognized by "the state" that "the state" is a relatively modern construct, and certainly would have applied only very loosely in the time period he is getting his biblical basis from.

Not to mention that marriage, in various forms, predated Christianity by quite a bit.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the state (the US) accepting gay marriage (and any other marriages) and giving it the same benefits as straight marriage. There's also the issue of the Constitution (which is a state construct).

[Snorri1234]

But that's not really the issue.

It's what Jay is using as a defense for his view though.

(and any other marriages)

Why is that part of the issue?

[thegreekdog]

I cant really find where the constitution talks about the right to marriage as it were.

I guess you could find a very weak argument from the 9th amendment, but if thats all there is, you need another source and its still quite weak at best.

I agree.

[thegreekdog]

But that's not really the issue.

It's what Jay is using as a defense for his view though.

(and any other marriages)

Why is that part of the issue?

I don't know. I support gay marriage. I just don't think it's constitutionally protected. And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

[PLAYER57832]

I cant really find where the constitution talks about the right to marriage as it were.

I guess you could find a very weak argument from the 9th amendment, but if thats all there is, you need another source and its still quite weak at best.

Essentially true.

The issue though is that marriage is recognized by the state to offer some given set benefits. Everything from inheritances and retirement accounts, rights to make decisions when a partner is ill, even just to visit a partner in the hospital, as well as custody of childre ... the state uses the institution of marriage as a convenient way to codify all of those issues. The state does so not just because of historical and cultural precedent, but because it provides a disctinct benefit to society.

Stable families, reduced litigation upon death ... all of these are benefits society recieves from marriage. Aside from moral objections, which have no legal standing unless they include true harm, there is no justification to exclude same sex couples from those benefits. Because the state does offer those benefits to some people and not to others, then it might fall under the purvue of "equal protection".

[PLAYER57832]

But that's not really the issue.

It's what Jay is using as a defense for his view though.

(and any other marriages)

Why is that part of the issue?

I don't know. I support gay marriage. I just don't think it's constitutionally protected. And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

I reverse that, if marriage is constitutionally protected, then there is no reason to exclude same-sex marriage. Juveniles are distinct. Multiple partner marriages may be distinct.

[Snorri1234]

And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Why?

[AAFitz]

But my prediction is.... all US States will eventually allow it. This is what happens when we distance ourselves from God and His ways. But there will be a price to pay.

Wake me up when that happens.

This one actually helps me breathe easier. Jay has been saying that the end is coming, bad things are coming, and we are on the brink of destruction. Now it seems we have until all US States allow gay marriage, and only at that time will there be a price to pay.

[thegreekdog]

And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Why?

That's a loaded question (despite being one word). And my opinion is purely based on jurisprudence (and not on what I think the Supreme Court would actually do).

If it's a right to privacy argument (in a similar vein as abortion, gay sex, etc.) then the argument is that if the right to privacy includes the right to marriage, then why doesn't it include the right to marry more than one person? I would argue that it does.

[PLAYER57832]

And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Why?

That's a loaded question (despite being one word). And my opinion is purely based on jurisprudence (and not on what I think the Supreme Court would actually do).

If it's a right to privacy argument (in a similar vein as abortion, gay sex, etc.) then the argument is that if the right to privacy includes the right to marriage, then why doesn't it include the right to marry more than one person? I would argue that it does.

I can see your point, but I don't think privacy is really where folks see the issue. I have heard it more as an equal protection issue, as I described above.

If it is strictly a privacy issue, then the rule for homosexuality should apply to multiple marriage partners. I just don't think it applies in either case, really.

[thegreekdog]

And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Why?

That's a loaded question (despite being one word). And my opinion is purely based on jurisprudence (and not on what I think the Supreme Court would actually do).

If it's a right to privacy argument (in a similar vein as abortion, gay sex, etc.) then the argument is that if the right to privacy includes the right to marriage, then why doesn't it include the right to marry more than one person? I would argue that it does.

I can see your point, but I don't think privacy is really where folks see the issue. I have heard it more as an equal protection issue, as I described above.

If it's an equal protection issue, Mormons especially have an even more valid (in my opinion) argument. In theory, polygamy is part of their religion and thus should be protected. They are members of a class of people in one religion and thus their religious practices should be protected. I'm not saying homosexuals don't have a valid equal protection claim (although I'm not sure there is a legal basis to back that up). I'm not sure what the argument homosexuals can make to say they are constitutionally protected to marry (except privacy maybe). Although, I do think the majority of states will permit gay marriage within the next few years. There will be some holdouts of course.

[Frigidus]

I don't know. I support gay marriage. I just don't think it's constitutionally protected. And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Indeed. To be honest, although I feel that there is a strong argument for allowing gay marriage in the Constitution, we shouldn't be relying on it to define modern morality. It is our reliance on outdated (in the sense of age, not use) texts that creates the issue in the first place. The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

[thegreekdog]

I don't know. I support gay marriage. I just don't think it's constitutionally protected. And if it is constitutionally protected, so are other forms of marriage.

Indeed. To be honest, although I feel that there is a strong argument for allowing gay marriage in the Constitution, we shouldn't be relying on it to define modern morality. It is our reliance on outdated (in the sense of age, not use) texts that creates the issue in the first place. The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

I sort of agree with this. I think, on a baseline level, it has to be decided whether homosexuals have a right to gay marriage, and that's a Constitutional concept. Once that's determined, then it's an easy answer.

If gay marriage is not a right (or if marriage is not a right) then, unfortunately, it becomes a moral issue, which should be left up to legislatures, whether state or federal, to decide (again, unfortunately).