[whit3K2]

Qingo:
That's quite a bit less money than the Christian right lobby who wants you to believe they are all going to hell.

Which wouldn't be the case except for the rise of post-modernity

Q:
They are discriminated against. Gay couples are disallowed from having the same hospital visitation rights, property rights and legal rights that straight couples have, because they are gay. Q.E.D.

That's why I AM for the idea of them having equal medical rights

Q:
what on earth does this have to do with whether or not they are discriminated against? That's like saying "there's no such thing as anti-Semitism because Jews are rich."

It shows that in the workplace, other than imperfect society, homosexuals really aren't discriminated against, except by hate groups. And if anything, they'd be discriminated because they were wealthy.

Q:
What does this have to do with the argument?

This is the reason homosexuals deserve equal medical rights.

Q:
I don't see how this is relevant to the argument either. Even if it is a choice, why does that mean they should not be allowed to have the same benefits as straight couples? I choose to be an atheist ... by your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to marry because you don't like the fact that I'm an atheist.

Homosexuals base their sex preference on a falliacy they want others to believe as well. God wanted marriage to between a man and a woman. As an atheist, you could get marriaged, but it would be purely by the state, not a holy marriage intended by God. (C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien once had a debate over this)

Q:
What an amazingly bigoted statement; I hope you do not actually mean what you are implying. First of all the statement is a contradiction. "Equal standard of treatment" is a privilege that U.S. citizens enjoy. Blacks, for example, should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites. It is their privilege, as citizens, to be treated with respect and dignity.
Second of all, you obviously do not agree with the "moral standards this country was founded on" ... for one thing I am guessing you think blacks should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites (not what the original morals of this country said). You also presumably think women should be allowed to vote and hold jobs (not what original morals said).

What I meant was as a Christian, I love the sinner,hate the sin.
Point taken, All have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but not at the expense of others.
I was talking about the Christian morality, this country's laws were based on, Christians make mistakes too

You are also a Christian, I take it. Well, many of the founders of this country were atheists or Deists (see my signature). Are you really so sure you want to appeal to the "morals of early America" to justify your argument? I don't think you know what you're getting into.

Yes, I am a Christian. And actually only 3 Americans who signed the declaration of Independence were atheists.

[jfahler03]

Because I dont have the time (or energy...boy am I tired) to post a rebuttal to whit3K2 I am simply reposting something that came up on another forum, I thought it would be interesting for ya'll to read:

If the UBBC code doesnt work, then sorry. I'm too tired to fix it , and sorry if it goes off topic to the current conversation, I'm just trying to let Qingu and Casey know that I agree with them, here goes:

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia link=board=general&num=1100758125&start=3#0 date=1100913906]I completely disagree with your view on Ammendment 1. Keepking the foundation of our society intact by banning gay marriage while still reaching out to gay people are two completely different objectives that should be in no way related. Both can be accomplished without destroying the other.[/quote]

I can’t talk for anyone else, but I never talked of banning gay marriage, I only disagreed with it. While your “foundation of society” argument does have some backing with research (Harvard study in Denmark), the backing is more from the sense of non marriage “coupling” (living together).

However, if we answer this horrible threat to the foundation of society then:

What about abusive heterosexual relationships?
What about adulterous heterosexual relationships?
What about the still present 50% divorce rate?
…and the ever present effects on children from any of these families?

Honestly, allowing gay marriage will allow more stability, and the system (of marriage) is already pretty unstable. It is impossible to regulate heterosexual relationships, and likewise it is impossible to regulate homosexual relationships.

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
Biblically, there is no dispute on the fact that this is not what God intended. The sole reason why the construct of marriage still exists is because God ordained it at the beginning of human existance. Ephesians 5:22-33 clearly presents that marriage is a model based on the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:24 states "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her", and at the end of the passage in verse 32 Paul writes "this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." [/quote]

I agree…however in a strictly “Christian” definition of marriage. To me this is a non-issue. I will repost the idea asking “how can we as Christians expect non-Christians to act as we do?” At the same time, instead of forcing them to change, we need to remember Romans 5:8. Amendment I will not change their hearts and minds, even if 60% voted “yes”.

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
It is also mentioned many times that homosexuality is sinful. In Romans 1:26-27, homosexuality is described as a "vile passion" and "shameful", causing those who commit it to "receive in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Putting these two observations, it is a logical conclusion that a holy ordained relationship which models Christ and the church should never be based on something that is vile and shameful. [/quote]

OK, so are 600+ other Mosaic and Levitical laws. Has anything been done about adultery? Unnecessary divorce? What about personal slander? And if we were to enforce these (along the lines of any good dictatorial theocracy) how exactly would we enforce them? Historically the only method available is scare tactics and absolutism.

I’m not trying to skirt around homosexuality being a sin, because it is. However if the government is going to “regulate” it, again, where does this regulation stop?

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
Let's say that even though you admit that it is an unholy relationship, you don't believe that the government should interfere and thus you vote for the possibility of gay marriage being legal. But this is a contradictory position between faith and works. Unlike some actions which are personal liberty (for example, consumption of alcohol in moderation) and can acceptably be supported either way, gay marriage is directly in conflict with the teachings of the bible. Voting for something is a work that supports it.
[/quote]

“Voting for something is a work that supports it”. OK, I’ll agree with that because it’s completely logical, in this case relating to the Christian relationship with homosexuality.

However, we need to realize that the United States is in no way, and was never in any way intended as a “Christian” nation. Stating this (that it is somehow “Christian”) completely goes against anything historical. Why do I say this, even though “God” is “acknowledged” in the first documents (Constitution, etc.)? Because of the fact that: many of the founding fathers were deists and it is stated (by many of those same founding fathers) as early as 1796 (and probably earlier, I’ll have to search some more documents) that the United States was not founded upon the Christian religion. Voting for something which I believe the United States should support which may in fact be “anti-Christian” is in my own ethical view very “Christian”. The very fact that the United States --- in its theoretical form --- accepts everyone regardless of race, sex, etc. reflects that of the very ideals of Christ. However, as Christ accepted non-Christians and common sinners, we too need to accept non-Christians (we are already all common sinners).


[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
I know that the private lives of people cannot be controlled by the government, but this is a public issue (and a critical one). It has long been evident by both biblical and historical sources that the widespread public implementation of homosexuality in society is an indication of the coming fall of that society. It was clear in Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) when God destroyed them physically and visibly, and it is observed by secular historical study that when the values a nation was founded on are abandoned more often than not the nation declines and collapses. There is an article concerning the decline of nations throughout history by Kerby Anderson at http://www.probe.org/docs/decline.html. A one sentence summary of this article is "As families go, so goes a nation." Gay marriage destroys the family that our country is based upon. [/quote]

Historically does this article account for other measures? Your article cites “ancient Greece and the Roman Empire” but fails to mention 1) the fact that both of these were pagan nations and 2) the outside forces. Rome for example had plenty other things to worry about than gays. While emperors were finding themselves in sexual orgies, barbarians were invading from all directions. Further, constant political struggles between rulers only allowed for greater instability.

Lets take your view, that in fact gay marriage is the result of all the proceeding nations. Did any of the nations (or civilizations) have civil liberties as we know them? Have any of the nations gone through civil war, economic depression, and world war only to become stronger? While I’m not naïve enough to believe of the “invincibility” of America I find it interesting that it is in a much different environment than any of these nations were (which were mainly monarchies and oligarchies).

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
But does prohibiting gay marriage stop us from ministering to them? Absolutely not. It's not about "not passing judgement", it's not about "not being the enemy", and it's not about staying "as far away from using Christianity as a label as possible". It's about knowing what we believe is right and godly, knowing that it is good for the family and for our country, and supporting it. It does not stop us from being friends with gay people and it does not judge them at all -- it judges their lifestyle only. They can still have civil unions if they wish, and we can still love them, pray for them, and witness to them. [/quote]

I agree with this…but…

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
But giving in to their desire to destroy the sanctity of marraige is something that we should never support. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you, but they’re not trying to ruin life for others. Further, I’ve badgered on and on again on how worldly and Christian definitions of marriage differ, and how the Christian definition of marriage is only to be supported by the church.

[quote author=Guest-Alitheia]
Quite frankly, legalizing gay marriage just to show them that you love and accept them is akin to giving drugs to an addict -- in essence it demonstrates that you believe what they are doing is right. Legalizing gay marriage even though you don't believe it is right is a direct conflict between your faith and your works and based on all of history, it does not bode well for the future of our country.

Gay marriage is not biblically correct, and it has terrible ramifications for those who partake in it and for our society as a whole. That is why I voted yes for Ammendment 1.[/quote]

I’m omitting a response because I feel I’ve answered all there is to say.

I do believe in the separation of church and state, on historical, political, and religious backgrounds, which is the main reason why I voted “no” for Amendment I.

Posted at http://lc3crusaders.proboards31.com -- The Lorain County Community College Campus Crusade for Christ forums

[Qingu]

I'll repeat what I said on another thread. I think it is the basest hypocrisy that the evangelical Christian Right is up in arms about denying gays the right to have civil unions.

Born-again Christians have some of the highest divorce rates in any religious group. Their divorce rates are twice as high as atheists.

In the gospel of Mark, divorce is outlawed by Jesus unconditionally. In Matthew it is outlawed with a very slight condition, and both gospels equivocate it with adultery. Adultery is a sin, like homosexuality, that is an "abomination" as described in the Old Testament, and deserving of violent death. Paul says a few things about homosexuality being wrong, but in every gospel and in every source Jesus rails against divorce.

If anyone, as a member of the evangelical Christian crowd, wants to believe that homosexuality is a sin, fine. If you take issue with the definition of "marraige" being amended to include gays, fine. But when a member of a Christian right spends so much energy campaigning against the right for gays to have civil unions, and ignores the huge divorce rate--the disgusting level of "sin"--in his own ranks, then I am reminded of what Jesus said: "Take the log out of your own eye."

[Qingu]

In any case, whit, your whole argument, in addition to verging on total hypocrisy, is based on the presumption that Christianity is true (actually that your narrow interpretation of it is true). This does not help the original poster at all, who is not writing his paper from the Christian perspective.

[Aussie_Lovin126]

I apologize for the delay in response. As silly as it sounds, I had trouble finding my own post. Okay, let me look over some of your ideas and I will reply! Thanks for all your input by the way!
Aussie_Lovin126

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Originally Posted by exo

This is an emotional argument.

That actually was not an argument, though it does give you some insight into why I view this issue as so important!

One good argument is that marriage is not a right, but a priveledge. Why is that? Because 'rights' are things that are afforded to *everyone*: education, voting, etc. But priveledges are for those things that you have to qualify for. For instance: grants, driver's license, and, yes, marriage.

On the same token, marriage provides benefits to society as a whole in terms of procreation (creating the next generation of work force) and stability. It can then be shown that (committed) homosexual relationships are more unstable than heterosexual ones.

I totally agree! Marriage is not necessarily a "right," "privilege" would be a better word. But why should we exclude homosexuals from that "privilege;" what is your reasoning behind it? I see you tried to answer that in the next paragraph, but I do not think it holds up to closer examination.
Take this for Example (these numbers are completely made up):
9 out of 10 people have yellow teeth.
8 out of those 9 people did not eat spinach when they were young.
Therefore, not eating your spinach when you were young causes you to have yellow teeth.
The two premises may be true, but is the conclusion valid? We have not looked into other causes of why these people have yellow teeth. Maybe they smoke or drink coffee. The actual reason for the yellowing may be completly unrelated to the fact that they did not eat spinach.
The same goes for the instability of homosexual relationships! One wonders if heterosexual relationships would be just as unstable if they too were faced with constant descrimination and had no support system, not to mention the fact that they have to keep their relationship a secret! I do not think you are looking at all the facts! Perhaps there are other reasons, completely unrelated to the fact that they are homosexual, that causes their relationships to fail...

The statement there only goes to show that homosexuality is not biologically 'natural' in the sense of intent. Yes, it occurs in natural systems, but that is not the intent of nature.

I don't believe we were discussing the "intent" of nature, but rather the morality of the issue... Just because something is not the "intent" of nature, does not make it immoral. What about artificial incemination? The "intent" of nature was for these particular individuals to not have offspring...

But there is another argument to be used: If homosexuals are granted marriage benefits, then who is to stop the Mormons from marrying multiple people and for a sister to marry a brother? Where is the line drawn for who can marry who? The problem arises here, because you can use the very same arguments that homosexuals are using today to further their cause to justify these other types of marriage.

This is an exact statement from one of my research websites:
www.religioustolerance.org
Prior to 1840, the only legal marrianges in the US were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Latter Day Saints, introduced polygamy. This involves one man marrying multiple wives, and was legal in Utah before it was admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to suspend polygamy for an indefinite period. However, during the half century that polygamy was legally practised, the other practices [you] mentioned above never developed.
A fundamentalist Mormon group settled in Bountiful, British Columbia,Canada in the 1940s. It was excomunicated decades ago by the main LDS church because they followed Joseph Smith's original teachings in the practice of polygamy. They still live in plural marriages today. Their practice never expanded into other parts of British Columbia even though there has been, until recently, no opposition from the prvincial government. Other marital structures simply never developed.

WE have the power to define marriage, but we must have reasons to support why we are defining it that way. It is easy to come up with reasons against marrying your sister (ever heard of recessive genes) or why one cannot marry an animal (animals are not rational beings and have no way of consenting to marriage). Why not define marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others?" That seems pretty fair!

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Qingu:
Would you mind if I quoted you in a couple of places? You must have had practice in philosophical arguments! You seem to know exactly the type of arguments I am looking for!!!
Just as a side note I am a she not a he, but all to the good!
jfahler03:
You had some excellent arguments as well and plan to do a bit of quoting with you too! Thank you so much for your very influencial and valid arguments!

You both have helped to erase some of my belief that a lot of religious people are narrowminded and intolerant. I have received quite a bit of negativity when this issue comes forth, however, it is my favorite issue to discuss!
Thanks again, for your excellent arguments. My paper is due Wednesday, I will let you know how I do! Wish me luck!!!

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Qingu:
Would you mind if I quoted you in a couple of places? You must have had practice in philosophical arguments! You seem to know exactly the type of arguments I am looking for!!!
Just as a side note I am a she not a he, but all to the good!
jfahler03:
You had some excellent arguments as well and plan to do a bit of quoting with you too! Thank you so much for your very influencial and valid arguments!

You both have helped to erase some of my belief that a lot of religious people are narrowminded and intolerant. I have received quite a bit of negativity when this issue comes forth, however, it is my favorite issue to discuss!
Thanks again, for your excellent arguments. My paper is due Wednesday, I will let you know how I do! Wish me luck!!!

Good luck :-D.

I consider myself "religious" only in the popular sense of the word: going to church and believing in one truth when it comes to God. However, while I'm theologically conservative (and consider homosexuality a sin), I am politically liberal (or according to the Nolan test). I just don't understand any historical basis for putting Christianity specifically into the laws of the United States... take a look at the 1789 (date?) Barbarry Treaties (available via the Avalon project at Yale Law School) to see what I mean... not to mention quotes and beliefs of our founding fathers.

In relation to marraige... I believe the church does have a right to not allow certain marraiges according to their standard. However, it needs to realize that their standards are not going to always be felt by those "worldly" governments which rule today. For this reason, I see gay marraige as a civil issue, not a religious or moral issue.

On quoting me: sure thing... sounds good to me .

By the way, I was sorting through a July 1944 - Sept 1944 bound collection of Life magazine for historical photos of American GI's in Europe in WWII, and I came across the article relating to the "Fundamentalist" Mormons who were arrested.

EDIT: PS: I think Qingu will speak for himself, but I don't believe he is "religious"... he can answer for himself on this though.