Being Anti-gay Marriage = Against Minority Rights?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1523695' date='May 9 2008, 11:06 PM']I apologize if this has already been brought up.

How does one respond to the accusation, that those who are against gay marriage (like myself) are similar to those who were against equal rights for minorities back in the day (U.S.)? I know one is racial, while the other is based on sexual orientation, but the principle (according to the accusers) is the same. How does one respond to this?

Thanks in advance.[/quote]
I'm probably largely repeating what others have said here, but homosexual activity is a [i]behavior[/i], whilst race involves nothing more than one's ancestry and related physical characteristics such as skin color.

The issue of "gay marriage' has nothing to do with civil rights, but with the state sanctioning and legally rewarding a form of behavior (homosexual sodomy), and treating it as something it is not (a marriage).
Two (or more) people of the same sex sodomizing one another is [i]not[/i] the same thing as a marriage, and there is no reason the state must legally treat it as such.

One man and one woman is essential to the nature of marriage; the race of the people getting married is not, so false comparisons of not allowing "gay marriage" to not allowing people of different races to marry are bogus.
A homosexual "marriage" is not a marriage, and should not be treated as such.

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1523702' date='May 9 2008, 11:16 PM']I'm a Libertarian, so I would also say something like this. I don't agree with Same Sex Marriage, but at the same time, if preachers want the right to say its wrong, we have to give people the right to do that. Same Sex is not godly, but God gives us the right to follow or not to follow him. Why should we legislate morality? As long as its not a crime against property or self, such as stealing, murder, or injuring a person with the intent to harm, I don't think we should be legislating it, just as much as I think it Marijuana sales legalized.

Let sinners be sinners. I am a firm advocate that a sinner is the best person to convert to faith in Christ!

So, I do think anti-gay marriage = against minority rights. If we can say its wrong, they should have the right to do that wrong thing.

I know this will not make me a popular person in this board, but if God allows them to make that choice, who am I to say they shouldn't make the wrong choice by legislating it![/quote]
As I've pointed out many times here, [i]all[/i] laws legislate morality in some form, including laws against murder, theft, etc. The idea that people's persons and property should be protected from outside harm is itself a moral principle. (Thou Shalt Not Kill. Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc.)
The only logical conclusion to "not legislating morality" would be complete anarchy, and the law becoming nothing more than "the strength of the strong" as Plato put it.

And officially recognizing homosexual sodomy as being equal to marriage harms the moral health of society as large, and is contrary to justice.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1523765' date='May 10 2008, 02:30 AM']The difference between a governmental body not illegalizing certain ill-moral behaviors and institutionalizing them ([i]either passively or actively[/i]) are two different matters all together.[/quote]
Exactly.
People on here keep acting as if not instituting "gay marriage" would somehow outlaw homosexuality, though it would in reality do nothing of the sort.
Outside of Massachusetts, "gay marriages" are not recognized, and have never been throughout our country's history. Refusing to recognize "gay marriage" would merely keep the status quo.
Not instituting "gay marriage" would not in itself do anything to outlaw homosexual activity; it would simply not award it the legal benefits awarded to marriage.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1523791' date='May 10 2008, 06:40 AM']This is one instance where I agree with Ron Paul and think the easiest solution would be to get rid of state recognition of marriage all together.[/quote]
While it may be the easiest, I hardly think it the best. The primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family, which can be quite expensive (and especially if only one parent can work). Thus the various tax breaks and such for married couples and children.

The whole idea behind giving benefits for married couples is recognition of the fact that the family is the foundation of society.
And no, I don't care how many times the "progressives" say it, a same-sex couple committing sodomistic acts does not a family make.

I'm afraid states not recognizing marriage period would only make things worse for (real) families.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1525412' date='May 11 2008, 09:18 PM']One man and one woman is essential to the nature of marriage; the race of the people getting married is not, so false comparisons of not allowing "gay marriage" to not allowing people of different races to marry are bogus.
A homosexual "marriage" is not a marriage, and should not be treated as such.
As I've pointed out many times here, [i]all[/i] laws legislate morality in some form, including laws against murder, theft, etc. The idea that people's persons and property should be protected from outside harm is itself a moral principle. (Thou Shalt Not Kill. Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc.)
The only logical conclusion to "not legislating morality" would be complete anarchy, and the law becoming nothing more than "the strength of the strong" as Plato put it.[/quote]

I agree that homosexual marriage is not marriage, and is in fact open rebellion against God. But hey, if God allows people to be in open rebellion to him, who am I to say anything! Let sinners be sinners is my motto, but if they feel convicted, then I can help them to repentance!

I think the best person to convert to Christ is a sinner. They make the best converts, as they love God for forgiving their sins!

In fact, I totally disgree with you. I think the law is all that we need, and very few people to make sure it is obeyed. I have this kinda idea, if you give people trust and opportunity, they will be able to figure out the will of God. However, there are individuals that need to be. . . brought to justice for their crimes against humanity! That will teach the rest of those would dare bring humanity to the brink of madness that we are involved in a lesson, don't mess with God, don't play God, and never even attempt to take control ever again! During that time, there will be some chaos, for sure, but after, the blessings afterwards will be worth all the struggle!

[dairygirl4u2c]

just a little obligatory quibble with what soc said. i'm sure he's heard it before, but just to give the other side.

saying that since we ultimately legislate morality, epeically when that statement is used to justify banning sins, is missing the point. missing the point of what it means when people say "we shouldn't legislate morality"

we can not have gay marriage and all, that's all okay. there's a difference between race and orientiation and acting on it and stuff.

but, i think a true libertarian does not want to ban gay sex. we shouldn't legislate morality, properly understood.

we don't say "i don't like people listneing to metallica, so i am banning music from that group". it's a free country and it's immoral to ban things like this.
we don't ban a little brother calling his sister names, just because it's a sin. we don't ban people who think or say things we disagree with even if it means they are advocating very bad things. (we don't do it cause of ethical reasons... putting aside that we don't do it cause it's unconstitutional)
i think sodomy etc is more like this stuf that we don't ban, than things that we do.

true, we legialate morality ultimately. when someone is speeding, they put others at risk. when someone is playing hteir music too loud, htye are infinging on others. we legislate when it's causing problems to others or other exigent circumstances. we allow people freedom to do thier thing, even to sin, as long as it's not infringin gon others.

i'm pretty sure jesus would have been more adament about outlawing sin if he thought that was a solution. he wouldn't just think it a political thing people could legit disagree about, he'd have taught about it, if that postiion to ban sodomy etc has any merit to it.

be the true libertarian. take the moral position. don't go banning everything under the sun just because it is a sin.
the alterantive of banning all sins, is too much. it's ludicrious.

even the conservative justices like thomas often said... they didn't think the antisodomy etc laws should exist and are silly, even if they said they could be made legally.

as anoter point... about the laws and getting away from the ethics of them.... our country was founded largely by puritans. that so many states had so many things like that often just showed the puritanical foundation we have as a country... not that these laws are the way things should be done, as if the good ol days argument has necessary merit to it. other country's laws and the world as a whole is more indicative. you'd find less puritanitcal laws if you looked abroad, even in christian nations.

Edited May 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

some thigns to think about in regards to the puritanical laws we had at the beginning of our country, and whether the good ol days argument has any merit to it, as an indicator of how laws should be.

also remember htat blacks are slaves to puritans and back then etc.

[quote]PURITAN HERITAGE

Puritan heritage is nothing anyone should be proud of or wish to restore. The Puritans came to the colonies to establish a religious tyranny. As a state church, Puritans oppressed other religions like they had been oppressed in England. They wanted religious freedom only in the sense that they wanted the freedom to practice their Puritanism and to punish or banish all other religious beliefs.

1. Only Congregationalist churches were allowed. Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians and others were banished, often with a death sentence if they returned.

2. Only Congregationalist church members were allowed to vote. To be a church member, church elders had to unanimously certify that you were a "saint" destined for heaven.

3. Puritans punished even minor "impious" behavior. Failure to attend church earned a public whipping. A man was put into the stocks for kissing his wife in public on Sunday upon returning from three years at sea.

4. Puritans killed 25 people as witches. They persecuted Quakers by cutting off ears, burning holes through women's tongues with hot irons, floggings with whips, and hangings.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY U.S.

America's colonial Christians were an undemocratic minority that opposed freedom of conscience and denied political rights based on religious beliefs. Restoring this "Golden Age" means losing many of our freedoms and civil rights.

5. When the Constitution was ratified, eleven of the thirteen states had in their Constitutions religious tests for public office. Many states denied the vote based on a religious test. Catholics, Jews, Deists and unbelievers were among those denied equal rights.

6. At the time of the Constitution, at least five states made all citizens provide for the financial support for the churches and clergy of that state's one official religion. Other denominations were often hampered, harassed, or prohibited.

7. Estimates are that 10% - 20% of the people were church members circa 1790. The best estimate I found that used actual data was 17%. With only one in six going to church, it is ludicrous to claim that the nation was "Christian" at that time.[/quote]

Edited May 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1525464' date='May 11 2008, 10:10 PM']I agree that homosexual marriage is not marriage, and is in fact open rebellion against God. But hey, if God allows people to be in open rebellion to him, who am I to say anything![/quote]
Really now? I seem to recall something in Genesis 19 about God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah on account of this sin.

[quote]Let sinners be sinners is my motto, but if they feel convicted, then I can help them to repentance!

I think the best person to convert to Christ is a sinner. They make the best converts, as they love God for forgiving their sins!

In fact, I totally disgree with you. I think the law is all that we need, and very few people to make sure it is obeyed. I have this kinda idea, if you give people trust and opportunity, they will be able to figure out the will of God. However, there are individuals that need to be. . . brought to justice for their crimes against humanity! That will teach the rest of those would dare bring humanity to the brink of madness that we are involved in a lesson, don't mess with God, don't play God, and never even attempt to take control ever again! During that time, there will be some chaos, for sure, but after, the blessings afterwards will be worth all the struggle![/quote]
As has been repeatedly pointed out by others, you are also a sinner, as am I.
However, this does not mean the government should reward or subsidize anybody's sins.
Sin does not bring anybody to God, and should not be encouraged in any way.

As I've said before, the state not recognizing "gay marriage" does nothing to keep people from committing homosexual acts. Pretending that people can't exercise free will unless the government institutes homosexual "marriage" is just absurd.
It simply means the state won't award people legal benefits for such a "lifestyle."

By your logic, should the government give tax deductions for subscribing to porn?
Give vouchers to cover visiting whorehouses?
Give special tax breaks for running strip joints?

After all, sinners make the best converts! Why don't we have government just subsidize the whole vice and "open rebellion against God" business?

A Christian claiming that government must directly sanction immorality is nothing short of insane.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1526455' date='May 12 2008, 08:51 PM']Really now? I seem to recall something in Genesis 19 about God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah on account of this sin.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by others, you are also a sinner, as am I.
However, this does not mean the government should reward or subsidize anybody's sins.
Sin does not bring anybody to God, and should not be encouraged in any way.

As I've said before, the state not recognizing "gay marriage" does nothing to keep people from committing homosexual acts. Pretending that people can't exercise free will unless the government institutes homosexual "marriage" is just absurd.
It simply means the state won't award people legal benefits for such a "lifestyle."

By your logic, should the government give tax deductions for subscribing to porn?
Give vouchers to cover visiting whorehouses?
Give special tax breaks for running strip joints?

After all, sinners make the best converts! Why don't we have government just subsidize the whole vice and "open rebellion against God" business?

A Christian claiming that government must directly sanction immorality is nothing short of insane.[/quote]

Soc, they will get theirs, don't worry.

I expect half of the Occultists who attack me to be Sodomites. Every so often, I am spiritually raped, and it's really uncomfortable. I don't know how men could actually enjoy it! I am glad God has given me the wisdom take away their mode of attack. There's plenty of Sodomites out there who will never be able to enjoy themselves sexually ever again, as I ask God to prevent their attacks against me in the holy name of his son!

I like God's Justice better than man's. I don't care what Homosexuals really want, because God will pass judgment if they don't repent. I'm also not going to stand before them and being high and mighty, holier than thou, because I am not. I am just as much of a sinner as they are, and they don't deserve any kind of judgment.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1525060' date='May 11 2008, 03:06 PM']I'm not using it to justify ANYTHING. I'm unsure of how to make what I'm saying any more clear to you. I'm sorry if at this time you fail to grasp what I'm saying. You are asking me questions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I'm trying to make and therefore do a terrible job of conveying your understanding, if any, of what I was saying.
Using your logic:

Mormons are the same as Catholics. No? They're both religions! They must be the same because they can be placed into the same wide category of religion! One can only be as bad or as good as the other. The end.

See the flaw there?[/quote]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1525223' date='May 11 2008, 06:43 PM']My main point in debating here today was that we, as Christians, need to be very careful of how we argue and what we use to argue. We need to be thorough and well-educated on the topics at hand. We need to educate ourselves outside our comfort zones and we need to be aware of things (like Paul Cameron's "study" being a joke in the scientific community, for example) if we are to be taken seriously and if we are to remain credible.[/quote]

But still, should we hold "drug dealer pride" parades to celebrate the consensual business relationships between drug dealers and their customers?

Look, if all you are trying to say is "it will not work with the secular people", I will accept your concern as a premise regarding what tactics are effective and how to either get around or overcome that hurdle.

However, whereas I agree with you that we do need to educate ourselves and be aware of "what works", we also must never allow ourselves to surrender the terms of the debate to the secularists. And make no mistake: "consent" is the basis of the [i]secular[/i] argument in favor of recognizing homosexual relationships, and I understand that your generation has had the misfortune of being raised in an environment where there has been conditioning by MTV and other secular media and educational institutions that the issue is [i]consent, diversity, and tolerace[/i] rather than [i]right or wrong[/i].

Edited May 18, 2008 by Norseman82

[CatherineM]

The actual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality.