What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where would a person discuss gay marriage?

M

Mohrb

Member
I won't start the discussion here because I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place... but I was discussing gay marriage with people elsewhere, and a few people mentioned how Gay relationships are 100% consensual and don't hurt anyone and are perfectly healthy unlike a number of things gay marriages are often compared to... one of which being polygamy. Oddly enough, a lot of people support gay marriage for a number of reasons... yet turn around and call polygamy immoral and unacceptable and unnatural and distructive, etc. I thought it would be interesting to see if I could find some other perspectives on that issue.

Is this an appropriate place on this forum to post that discussion? Or is there another place? Or is the gay marriage issue not an appropriate topic for this forum?
 
if gay marriage is ok as its consentual, then how can the reasoning of that doesnt apply to the polygamy, as those involved arent forced in some countries.

there are people who have three way relationships and live together, i knew a guy with two girls yrs ago that did that.

i'm not for gay marriage or polygamy.
 
If it's genuinely consensual then why not polygamy? I wouldn't fancy it myself but I can't see a reason to try to stop other people doing it.
 
logical bob said:
If it's genuinely consensual then why not polygamy? I wouldn't fancy it myself but I can't see a reason to try to stop other people doing it.
Click to expand...
where do we stop, i will add this
if two sisters both lesbians have their reproductive organs removed(uterus) should we
what of incest and both person arent able to have kids

the problem here is the the fallout.
is the broken home a good thing or bad thing?
 
A practice doesn't stop because the state doesn't officially recognise it. You can disallow gay or polygamous marriage but it doesn't make gay or multi-partnered relationships go away.

Gay marriage (we call it a civil partnership in the UK) is about equality and about protecting people. It's about letting your partner be your next of kin if you're rushed to hospital or your heir if you die. It's about fair division of assets if a relationship ends. It's not a question of society sitting in judgement on your sexual preferences.

In principle there's no reason this couldn't extend to polygamy too. In some cases UK law has recognised polygamous marriages that took place in other countries.

On the broken home point, there are some spectacularly broken homes where everyone's straight and monogomous. It's hard to generalise and generally a bad idea for the state to make people's choices for them.

I've never really thought about lesbian incest, but I guess you have to ask for whose benefit you would be preventing it.
 
of course i know this, but we christians see that and say that is sad, and yet not plan to do this.

how can one know what a normal hetero marriage if one is raised in a gay parent marriage or polygamy

and i will add this
men with the aid of science can have children, its been done. should we?

the problem is we men get to redefine what the idea of male and female is and have done that for yrs. that is why the lord calls gay relationships and abomonation
i was the "male" in the gay relations ship my man was the female and was for woman like.
that is how most gays are, were does this stop :crazy
 
coming out of all that, i'm still being regerated by the holy spirit.

btw i went to school with a girl who slept with her brother. :verysick

and we used yrs ago call being gay a disease, now its not, simply by a vote. and i wonder about incest and other sickness since the moral relativist thinking is like this, if no one gets hurt then its ok.
 
logical bob said:
Gay marriage (we call it a civil partnership in the UK) is about equality and about protecting people. It's about letting your partner be your next of kin if you're rushed to hospital or your heir if you die. It's about fair division of assets if a relationship ends. It's not a question of society sitting in judgement on your sexual preferences.
Click to expand...
And that's the point I think is the most fair. Personally, "marriage" has been a central part of religion for thousands of years... for a government to redefine a religious -marriage- is unacceptable, IMO. However, I think the government should make available civil unions... for anyone who wants the legal rights you mentioned above... and legally have the same status as marriage, without the religious connotations. Many straight people (including atheists) may not want a religious marriage. I think the church should be able to define religious -marriage- performed by a cleric of the church. And the state should define a civil union that has no religious connotations.

In that case, homosexuals (and anyone else who wants a purely secular relationship) would have all the same legal rights.... but us crazy religious folks don't get our religion undermined.

... I mostly wanted to hear from someone who was -for- gay marriage, yet -against- polygamy. ... because every pro gay marriage argument would work just as well with polygamy. Yet either can be viewed as unacceptable by social groups with or without religion.
 
that has been done, in the northeast states and look at them now, they want marriage

if we do that mohrb what of adoption, equal rights.

the churches can not hire someone based on someone who they are married to or live with.
 
Hate the sin, not the sinner. As people, everyone should have equal rights. We're all sinners. However, that doesn't mean we should be forced to approve of things our religion doesn't approve of.

However, I do disagree with calling homosexuality (or alcoholism) a "disease." ... diseases are biological things people have no control over. Alcoholism is a matter of a lack of self-discipline... not a "disease." Likewise homosexuality isn't something that can be "cured." ... it's a preference. Not something that someone "actively chooses"... but certainly not something that someone "is born with" or "has no control over." People build an attraction to people based on their reactions to personal experiences... which is why different people may look at the same person... one may find that person amazingly attractive, another may find that person revolting.

... being attracted to the wrong sort of person (someone of the same sex, the same family, someone underaged, or any number of immoral sexual fetishes) isn't caused by a bacteria or a DNA sequence... it's caused by a person allowing themselves to develop an attraction for what they shouldn't.
 
so then abortion should be legal? or what of other things.

i guess when you have to see the broken homes or recover from that sin, you may change your mind. this is where i stand the later.

when we redefine what a man or woman is, what chaos shall ensue. we are seing this already. if youd doubt reread bob's statement on the two lesbian sisters that fall in love.

hmm and being bi, isnt normal, the apa(physchologist) are the ones that called being gay a disease till the 70's.
 
jasoncran said:
so then abortion should be legal? or what of other things.
Click to expand...
Abortion is different. If gay marriage is a crime then it's a crime without a victim. It's also a matter of free adult choice. In the case of abortion there is a victim - the unborn child who has no choices.
 
jasoncran said:
so then abortion should be legal? or what of other things.

i guess when you have to see the broken homes or recover from that sin, you may change your mind. this is where i stand the later.

when we redefine what a man or woman is, what chaos shall ensue. we are seing this already. if youd doubt reread bob's statement on the two lesbian sisters that fall in love.

hmm and being bi, isnt normal, the apa(physchologist) are the ones that called being gay a disease till the 70's.
Click to expand...

Jason, while I don't approve of homosexuality, I have a problem with how you're going about your points. First... comparing homosexuality to abortion? I'm pretty imaginative, but I can't comprehend that correlation at all.

Second, pro-gay marriage people aren't redefining men or women, but the legal contract between the two. I agree that this shouldn't be done, however, the question for this thread is directed at those who DO believe it's acceptable, yet think it should stop there.

Third, we saw the first time that homosexuality used to be classified as a "disease" ... but so has left-handedness. That's not a good argument. A disorder, possibly. An abnormality, definitely. But "disease" isn't an appropriate term for someone making a series of bad decisions.
 
logical bob said:
jasoncran said:
so then abortion should be legal? or what of other things.
Click to expand...
Abortion is different. If gay marriage is a crime then it's a crime without a victim. It's also a matter of free adult choice. In the case of abortion there is a victim - the unborn child who has no choices.
Click to expand...
true but some say that our morality says its illegal , while other say that abortion isnt murder.
to me its same thought. you say it good based on some moral code that i dont accept.

we christains are against abortion because of what the bible says about the unborn.
the same with gay rights. to us its sin.
 
The bible never says "gay rights is a sin." We're not to approve of homosexuality, but in spite of the sin, we're expected as Christians to treat the sinner with Christian love (considering the fact that we're all sinners, and it's not up to any of us to judge each other).

The reason gay -marriage- is specifically unacceptable is because it would change the term established by religion thousands of years ago. Changing marriage to be between two men isn't the right of any government... no one should be forced to -condone- homosexuality... but basic rights isn't a matter of "condoning" or not.
 
Mohrb said:
The reason gay -marriage- is specifically unacceptable is because it would change the term established by religion thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
But which religion? Don't be thinking that marriage is a Judeo-Christian innovation - it was around in various societies many centuries before the beginnings of Judaism. Some early societies also approved marriages that were polygamous (the story of Solomon shows that the OT authors recognised this) or incestuous (Tutankhamun married his sister), so Judeo-Christianity took it upon itself to alter the already established terms you mentioned.

At the time the Bible was written, marriage was an arrangement in which the woman had no rights and owned no property. Few modern states see marraige this way, so we have already changed the established terms, and rightly so.

Social arrangements change all the time. That's perfectly natural, and gay marriage is the next step in the process.

Mind you, I'm not sure why a gay person would want their union recognised by conservative or evangelical Christianity. You guys are never done telling them they're going to burn in hell.
 
no, it doesnt. but where does all laws come from.

should we just ignore those things that dont kill a person, but destroy their lives.

would you sit by and let your child date a son of belial, without a least telling that they are making a mistake?

murder, what says that murder,rape and so on is wrong?

btw ,bob, do you believe that those two lesbians sisters, that are in love, should be allowed to adopt or be artifically inseminated?
 
jasoncran said:
btw ,bob, do you believe that those two lesbians sisters, that are in love, should be allowed to adopt or be artifically inseminated?
Click to expand...
Well, on a purely practical level you'd have a hard time preventing them from getting artificial insemination.

Regarding adoption, you have to ask whether they'd be able to provide a child with a stable, loving home. If there was a shortage of people willing to adopt you'd also have to ask what the future held for a child they were prevented from adopting. Growing up in an institution might not be a great alternative.
 
but they are sisters in incest!
thats the point. if its was a boy and girl, it wouldnt be ok would it

reread what i said about the two lesbain sisters,they love each other and marry.
i did state that clearly earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top