[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

So beyond "it's not death," what exactly is your problem with homosexual civil unions? You said it's encouraging homosexuality, but then "prohibiting them the same rights as straight couples" is a punishment, one that you define as sinful, just as other conceivable punishments for gays (slavery, making them wear badges, deportation) would be sinful.

Simply avoiding giving them tax breaks for committing sodomy doesn't qualify as a punishment.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper359

I'm definately a Christian, but I prefer to live in a secular nation.

Psalm 2:1-12
Why do the nations rageand the peoples plot in vain?
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
[3] "Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us."
[4] He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
[5] Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
[6] "As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill."
[7] I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, "You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
[8] Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
[9] You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
[10] Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
[11] Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
[12] Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

Not giving them tax breaks for committing sodomy isn't a punishment.

The tax breaks are not "for committing sodomy." They are for couples who trust each other enough that they wish to mutually share economic benefits. The sodomy is incidental, in the same way that the regular sex is incidental to the legal and economic aspects of man-woman marraige.

Denying gay couples the same legal and economic rights as straight couples is indeed punishing them for being gay. Not as harsh a punishment as slavery; however, I fail to see what else you can conceivably call it in a supposedly equal society.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The tax breaks are not "for committing sodomy." They are for couples who trust each other enough that they wish to mutually share economic benefits. The sodomy is incidental, in the same way that the regular sex is incidental to the legal and economic aspects of man-woman marraige.

Well you've now progressed beyond the Christian worldview. Sex is not incidental in marriage at all; it's an integral part of it, for it is part of the very definition ("the two shall become one flesh").

Originally Posted by Qingu

Denying gay couples the same legal and economic rights as straight couples is indeed punishing them for being gay. Not as harsh a punishment as slavery; however, I fail to see what else you can conceivably call it in a supposedly equal society.

I'm sorry; I'm just not seeing how it's a punishment at all. It seems as though there are rewards given to married couples which just aren't given homosexuals. And since these are rewards, and not something which people are owed, it's not a punishment to withhold it.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well you've now progressed beyond the Christian worldview. Sex is not incidental in marriage at all; it's an integral part of it, for it is part of the very definition ("the two shall become one flesh").

So married couples who do not have sex should not receieve economic benefits?

I'm sorry; I'm just not seeing how it's a punishment at all. It seems as though there are rewards given to married couples which just aren't given homosexuals.

Do you think "passing property" is a "reward"?
Do you think that "allowing a person to visit their boyfriend/girlfriend in the hospital as a family member" is a "reward"?

And since these are rewards, and not something which people are owed, it's not a punishment to withhold it.

What do you mean "which people are owed"? Are we talking secular standards or Biblical standards? Where in the Bible does it say citizens are owed the right to not be forced to wear badges identifying them as "homosexuals", for example? Or, for that matter, where in the Bible does it say freedom (as in, not slavery) is something which we are owed? (how many people were the Israelites commanded to enslave again?)

Your standard of rights is obviously not Biblical, so why are you using a sinful standard to determine what is an allowance and what is a reward?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

So married couples who do not have sex should not receieve economic benefits?

I don’t care. I’m only arguing that homosexual couples shouldn’t because that would be to reward their homosexuality. What I said doesn’t entail an answer to your question either way.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Do you think "passing property" is a "reward"?
Do you think that "allowing a person to visit their boyfriend/girlfriend in the hospital as a family member" is a "reward"?

I think people should be able to pass their property to whomever they wish, since I don’t think the government has the right to regulate the passing of property in the first place. So this really doesn’t have much to do with my stance on civil unions.

Hospitals can set whatever visitation policies they wish.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What do you mean "which people are owed"? Are we talking secular standards or Biblical standards?

Biblical, primarily. It’s nice that the government gives special tax breaks to the married, but they’re not morally obligated to do so as far as I’m aware. I’m not sure they’re legally obligated to give tax breaks to everyone either. If they pass a law giving tax breaks to the married, and marriage is forbidden to homosexuals, I’d fail to see the legal problem with that.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Where in the Bible does it say citizens are owed the right to not be forced to wear badges identifying them as "homosexuals", for example?

The fact that God prescribed death as their punishment leaves us without the moral right to take liberties in inventing our own.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Or, for that matter, where in the Bible does it say freedom (as in, not slavery) is something which we are owed?

Exodus 21:16; Deut. 24:7.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your standard of rights is obviously not Biblical

On what basis?

[+Donny]

Guys, get back on topic. Qingu, not every thread that Travis posts in has to turn into a debate over whether Israel was a murderous group of homophobic savages.

[RhythmicAndy]

I think the root of the problem in this debate is that the political issue is being made religious. Because the Church is seperate from the State the issue has to be looked at from a secular view. There is an issue of right or wrong because non-Christians have morals too, but you can't try to say it can't be passed because of biblical law, it doesn't apply in our lost society. For Congress the reasons have to be legal and in line with the Constitution. Becuase the Constitution and Declaration don't directly adress or single out s it makes it difficult not to pass unless you have enough morally sound legislators to vote against. And right now I think the general opinion of our nation does not support same marraige. So the question of it spreading to the U.S. right now is probably low especially with the conservative Congress and a new Supreme Judge to replace O'Connor, which is most likely conservative. That's my opinion.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by RhythmicAndy

I think the root of the problem in this debate is that the political issue is being made religious. Because the Church is seperate from the State the issue has to be looked at from a secular view. There is an issue of right or wrong because non-Christians have morals too, but you can't try to say it can't be passed because of biblical law, it doesn't apply in our lost society. For Congress the reasons have to be legal and in line with the Constitution. Becuase the Constitution and Declaration don't directly adress or single out s it makes it difficult not to pass unless you have enough morally sound legislators to vote against. And right now I think the general opinion of our nation does not support same marraige. So the question of it spreading to the U.S. right now is probably low especially with the conservative Congress and a new Supreme Judge to replace O'Connor, which is most likely conservative. That's my opinion.

According to our present situation, I would agree. However, I think it's incredibly idealistic and foolish for people to think that political theory can actually be separated from the rest of philosophical/religious issues.