Tell me what to think (the issue of gay marriages)

[SlowwHand]

Ah.
But is he a homophobic bastard? No.

He may be a Texaphobic bastard.

[MikeH]

Of course. That's why I had to specify which type of Ming. I actually assumed Bastard would be censored.

I can see how that would be misread and it's not even funny so I'll edit it.

[SlowwHand]

Ok. So we do agree.
Ming is just a plain old everyday bastard.

[MikeH]

He's no everyday bastard, he's one of a kind.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

As such, i support making homosexual's able to enter into such contracts and be given the same rigths such contracts allow for heterosexuals, on all counts (adoptions as well).

I agree with the proviso that religions that consider homosexuality a sin may not be forced by law to perform such marriages.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I agree with the proviso that religions that consider homosexuality a sin may not be forced by law to perform such marriages.

I don't think this has ever been an issue. Churches and individual ministers can refuse to marry anyone for whatever reason. Its only been an issue when individual ministers and churches want to perform the ceremonies and the corporate church body doesn't want them to. Its an issue that will split some churches.

I'm Presbyterian USA and I think we'll lose about 20% of our churches over this when they form their own denomination. Most of the churches who want to perform same sex marriages are in California but not all of them.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I agree with the proviso that religions that consider homosexuality a sin may not be forced by law to perform such marriages.

Do religions which consider mixed race marraiges a sin (and it does say they are at some point in the Bible) have to marry mixed race couples?

I'm not debating, just asking.

[Jac de Molay]

Let them marry. I think it's hypocritical for some of these religious whackjobs to say how promiscuous and disease-ridden gays are, then tell them they can't pursue mutually beneficial, monogamous marriages.


I figured we as a society would have progressed past this by now.

[Ben Kenobi]

In no particular order:

Let them marry. I think it's hypocritical for some of these religious whackjobs to say how promiscuous and disease-ridden gays are, then tell them they can't pursue mutually beneficial, monogamous marriages.

Detroitdave:

Religious wackjobs?

First off, it's not just religious folks talking about the promiscuity prevalent among homosexuals, concern is also expressed by some homosexual activists, and public health officials.

Granted, there are different stripes among homosexuals, but there are some who insist that the whole idea of monogamy is outdated and unnatural. Thus, your caricature fails to strike home.

Secondly, you have a very effective argument, precisely my old position. If gay people cannot change their orientation, we should allow them to marry in order to reduce promiscuity.

The big question is the assumption that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. I submit for evidence, Asher's own admission of his shifting sexuality as just one example of this phenomenon.

A monogamous may be better than promiscuity, but it is not as good as a heterosexual marriage. Thus, we should offer counseling and services to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do religions which consider mixed race marraiges a sin (and it does say they are at some point in the Bible) have to marry mixed race couples?

red_jon:

I'm not sure. My church does not have a problem with mixed race marriages, especially since the congregation is very diverse (10 different language ministries!)

Most Christian churches should agree to marry mixed-race couples because Christians are not intended to be racially homogenous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Granted, there are different stripes among homosexuals, but there are some who insist that the whole idea of monogamy is outdated and unnatural. Thus, your caricature fails to strike home.

There are also lots of heterosexuals who insist the same thing, especially among the males. So what? But there is a certain scientific validity to the "unnatural" argument. After all, most animal species do not form long-term, monogamous couplings. In most mammal species, the male is driven by instinct to spread his seed to as many recipients as possible.

The big question is the assumption that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. I submit for evidence, Asher's own admission of his shifting sexuality as just one example of this phenomenon.

That's not really evidence of shifting orientation, and it is certainly not evidence that the shift can be made at will. Most teens go through years of sexual confusion--perhaps Asher was gay all along, but his thinking himself bisexual was a stepping stone to accepting his own homosexuality. I've certainly seen that in loads--er, plenty of men who proclaim themselves bi, only to end up fully gay. It wasn't their orientation that changed, only their perception and acceptance of it.

A monogamous may be better than promiscuity, but it is not as good as a heterosexual marriage. Thus, we should offer counseling and services to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.

Why is it not as good as heterosexual marriage? Since heterosexual marriage is no longer for the utilitarian purpose of siring progeny, I can scarcely see why we should say that homosexual marriage would be worse, especially since allowing homosexual marriage will not in anyway affect the heterosexual marriage rates.

And reparative therapy is a crock of ****, frankly. You'll notice that it is denounced by all mainstream psychological and medical organizations because not only does it not work, it is frequently psychologically damaging to those who undergo it. There isn't a shred of evidence that one can willfully change one's sexual orientation. Exodus's prize cases have ended up failures, and the emotional distress of these failures are horribly taxing on these people's psyches. That's one of the reasons the two men who founded Exodus now denounce the group. And they're a happily committed couple, too!

[red_jon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Most Christian churches should agree to marry mixed-race couples because Christians are not intended to be racially homogenous.

Times change. I'm sure if you go back 50-100 years you would find a vast number of people arguing against mixed race marraiges. My hope is that in the future, we'll simply view homosexual marraige in the same way.

And about the promiscuity thing - in our society, it seems women are usually the party to turn down/ limit sex. With no woman in the equation, of course men are going to be more promiscious. IMO anyway.

And Asher is still bi, isn't he? He may have told his parents he was gay, but he did say that was so he didn't confuse them.

[SlowwHand]

HOWEVER, man is not the only animal that is monogamous.
Not that the observation has jack to do with the discussion currently under way; I'm just pointing out the fact.

[SpencerH]

I couldnt get thru for a while but I'll post my answer to some previous responses to my post

Well my thinking was this. Lets say that with a wave of our magic wands that gay marriages have the same legal standing in law throughout the land as hetero marriages. Given that many churches will still refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, what are the odds of a gay legal challenge to prohibit churches from discriminating in this fashion?

[red_jon]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Well my thinking was this. Lets say that with a wave of our magic wands that gay marriages have the same legal standing in law throughout the land as hetero marriages. Given that many churches will still refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, what are the odds of a gay legal challenge to prohibit churches from discriminating in this fashion?

Well I personally wouldn't want to be married in a homophobic church - would you want to be being married by people who didn't want to be marrying you? It wouldn't be special.

But then people sue for spilling hot coffee off themselves, so it remains to be seen.