Homosexual activists argue that marriage is a construct of the State that can be defined in any manner the State chooses. They say marriage is about the public union of two people who wish to affirm their love and commitment to one another in a public, official manner. What's interesting is the limitation of this definition. Where does the idea of two come from? Why not three or four? And where do we get the idea that love is the foundation of marriage? Who decided that? Nowhere in the history of the world has love been the basis of marriage. What happened to procreation as the basis of, and reason for marriage?
If marriage is a construct of the State, and the basis of marriage is love and commitment, then there is no principled reason to prohibit group or incestual marriages. Clearly this is not being argued by the State. They still want marriage to mean something in particular, but they want to define what that particular something is.
To demonstrate the insensibility of sanctioning same-sex unions as "marriage" consider the following point made by Francis Beckwith: Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn't make it food. Food is not determined by what you put in your mouth, but by the nature of the substance itself, and the types of things the body is designed to consume and use. Just because two homosexuals pledge the vows of marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage is something in particular. Homosexuality is not congruent with the nature and purpose of marriage, and therefore we should not call same-sex relationships "marriage," nor give homosexuals the same rights/benefits we give to heterosexual unions.
Do you accept group marriages, incestual marriage, marriages with animals, etc? No? Then we are both the kind of people who restrict marriage. The question is whether or not our restrictions are principled or arbitrary in nature.
I never said it actually endorses pedophillia, because we both know it doesn’t. I said that it would be easier to argue than that it supports gay unions.
Did you read my post regarding this? If you did you would know that even if you incoinclusively proved that none of the 6-7 Bible passages actually refer to serious life long homosexual relationships (which you haven't for any of them but w/e) then that still doesn't demonstrate that it is acceptable behaviour.
The strongest evidence that suggests that homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions in the Bible etc. is about what is not written, not what is written. You can’t dismiss 6-7 Bible veses simply because you disagree with them, and think that the translator was a latent homophobe. Even if say, Romans was found as to not referring to homosexuality, the other 6 or so, would make up for that.
Once again, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; with this in mind, and the command to “go forth and be fruitful” where do homosexual unions fit in? There doesn’t seem to be a place for them at all, in either marriage or sex. Furthermore there is not a single homosexual union described in a positive light, throughout the whole of scripture, if they were trully equal to that of heterosexuals, then why is this the case?
It was an analogy xD
Lol... Ruth is Naomi’s daughter in law, not her lesbian GF.
Naomi’s husband (Elimelech) died and so did the husbands (her sons; Mahlon and Kilion) of Naomi and Orpah.
FFS Lol, go read Ruth (it’s a really small book) and tell me it has any references at all to a homosexual affair between Ruth and Naomi. It is actually a ridiculous suggestion.
Ruth 1:8
Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband”.
Naomi doesn’t want Ruth to go with her. She wants her to find a husband and be happy again. Ruth insists on following Naomi however, where she later meets Boaz (a guy) and they marry.
There is nothing at all to suggest that there was any lesbian affair going on, like actually nothing.
This is laughable. David had many female wives (one of which was Jonathans brother and Saul’s daughter, Michal). If anything he was bi, but this is irrelevant because David is never described as having sex with Jonathan.
Sam 16:12 reads;
...He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.
One hardly has to have a homosexual inclination to observe handsomeness in people of the same gender. Girls can identify each other as pretty or beautiful without being sexually attracted to them, the same goes for men, but I digress.
Furthermore there is nothing wrong with David and Jonathan loving each other and kissing or w/e in each other’s arms. No-where in the Bible is love for another of the same sex ever described as a sin. From what is presented by the Bible, neither of them is guilty of the sin as first described in the holiness code and elsewhere in the Bible, of a man lying with another man as he would a women.
“Your love for me is was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a women”, there is no reference at all to sex at all. The sin surrounding homosexuality is the physical abusing of sex for reasons with which it was not intended. The Bible doesn’t describe David or Jonathan as committing this sin at all. It would appear David and Jonathan were able to express their love for each other without having to revert to the sinful and carnal.
I never assumed to know your stance on financial, social or political issues, liberalism is concerned with the increasing of civil freedoms, to the point of permitting what should not be permitted and encouraging that which should not be encouraged. The gay “rights” movement is an example of a liberal movement in society.
The most dominant Ugandan denomination is actually Catholicism.
On Dec. 10, a Vatican diplomat addressed a United Nations panel on anti-gay violence, saying that “the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty … [and] discriminatory penal legislation.” Though there was no direct reference to Uganda, the context seemed clear enough, especially since the Ugandan legislation was a major focus of the panel’s deliberations.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/future-church/why-catholics-arent-speaking-uganda-about-anti-gay-bill
And stop talking about things you obviously know nothing about. There are over 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, most of them are able to appreciate their is nothing wrong with homosexual people and it is no greater sin than any other. It doesn't make it any less immoral, but honestly, if all 1.2 billion (almost 2 billion Christians overall) actually bashed up gay people, then the fact of the matter is there wouldn't be many gays left at this point.
Stop sterotyping Christians on the basis of the actions of a few misguided idiot rednecks who probably have only red Lev 18:22 and ignored everything else. Christ's message is about love, not animosity and violence.
Please don’t think that since I don’t think two people of the same gender having sex is morally acceptable, that I would ever support legislation denying people who engage in such behaviour the right to live.
I am against homosexuality sure, but I can appreciate a person’s right to do what they want in their personal life, and as such am actually against it being criminalised.
Lol... All of these require artificial intervention. None of these processes are natural, sort of like homosexuality itself, but w/e...
Mate, heard of cloning? I can have a child without even having a partner! Isn’t that dandy?
No, it isn’t.
The problem is just because we can do something, doesn’t make it right. Humans have no greater right to artificially take life away than we do at creating it. A child is not a commodity, to be bought from a clinic of doctors with a bunch of test tubes and syringes. If a person wants a child, then they should conceive. If they are unable to do that, for whatever reason, then that’s unfortunate, but is not an issue that needs to be addressed. The world is suffering from overpopulation regardless. While I don’t believe in gay adoption, since I believe a child has the right to both a mother and father, it is definitely the lesser of two evils when compared with artificial fertilisation procedures.
Love, while a pure and wholesome thing itself, has never been the basis of marriage or of families. Should it be integral to all families, yes of course, but it is not at all required. A man and a women, however are required. Civil marriage does not recognise the love between two people, that’s the celebration associated with religious or private marriage. Civil marriage is the signing of a form, which makes a special type of union (one which is capable of creating and caring for the children of the next generation) recognised by the state and eligible for special rights and priveldges given specifically to it to assist it in carrying out this unique purpose.
1. A common argument. If we allow gay marriage, why stop at multiple or bestial marriage? I don't argue for those things. There are reasons to prevent polygamy and bestiality. There are no really good ones to prevent gay marriage.
2. I don't think any of us should talk about nature or congruency. Just because something is less common does not make it unnatural, there are many reasons for marriage and we're talking to each other on the web... hardly a natural device.
3. Not everyone wants to go forth and multiply, thankfully.
4. Did you read my piece? It said there is no solid proof, but the bonds between the two women were very powerful. Love was the bond.
5. How is it irrelevant? He said that he had never felt that love with any of his wives. A declaration of love from someone who entered straight marriages as a form of contract for the purpose of having children and cultural purposes, I think so.
6. You obviously know very little about Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
American evangelicals such as Scott Lively and California pastor Rick Warren have a history of involvement in Uganda where they focus their missionary work. As a result, Warren and others have become influential in the shaping of public policy in Uganda, Nigeria, and to a lesser extent, Kenya. Stephen Langa, the March 2009 workshop organiser, specifically cited an unlicensed conversion therapist named Richard A. Cohen, who states in a book that was given to Langa and other prominent Ugandans,
Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.
These statements were based on faulty studies performed by Paul Cameron, who has been expelled from the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association, and Cohen confirmed their weaknesses, stating that when the book will be reprinted, these statistics will be removed.
From 5 to 8 March, 2009, a workshop took place in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, that featured three American evangelical Christians: Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organisation devoted to promoting "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ".
The theme of the conference, according to
The New York Times, was the "gay agenda": "how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity' ".
An Anglican priest from Zambia named Kapya Kaoma was in attendance, and reported on the conference. Ugandan Stephen Langa organised it, and was supported by Lively, who asserted in his workshops that homosexuality was akin to child molestation and bestiality, and causes higher rates of divorce and HIV transmission.
Lively's emphasis was on the cohesion of the African family, that he said was being threatened by homosexuals looking to recruit youth into their ranks. According to Kaoma, during the conference, one of the thousands of Ugandans in attendance announced, "[The parliament] feels it is necessary to draft a new law that deals comprehensively with the issue of homosexuality and...takes into account the international gay agenda... Right now there is a proposal that a new law be drafted."
Just because the Vatican opposes this bill doesn't mean Ugandan 'Christians' do... most of them support it. I didn't say evangelism was the most common form of Christianity in Uganda. I merely stated that Christians are trying to persecute gay Ugandans, using their views on the bible and a scare tactic response to their HIV crisis to do so.
7. I don't remember making blanket statements about the world's 1.2 billion catholics. I myself am a lapsed catholic.
8. I don't really hold much of an opinion in terms of bioethics, sorry. Having kids doesn't appeal to me.
9. I would hope no family is devoid of love, because without love the structures humans create for society are meaningless
