February 9, 201214 yr I'm a believer in Christ. I believe the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. I believe most homosexuals are born that way, they don't choose it. Why would God create humans who's fundamental nature is against His natural order of things? I've read different religious scholar's takes on this, but I still struggle with it. If they can't choose it, then why as a state are we preventing them from sharing in the same rights as others?
February 9, 201214 yr If they can't choose it, then why as a state are we preventing them from sharing in the same rights as others? In the California case, we're not. California gives all rights of marriage to same-sex civil unions. We're really just talking about what the same-sex union is called. In states w/o same-sex civil unions, the actual withholding of rights becomes the issue. I'm all for same-sex civil unions for two reasons: 1) my belief that, generally, one's sexuality is not chosen, and 2) the more people in monogamous relationships, gay or otherwise, the better off society will be. I'm against giving same-sex unions the official title of "marriage." IMO, the push to give them this title is about one thing: pronouncing homosexuality as normal. I grew up in the SF Bay Area in the 70's & 80's. Back then the goal of the gay rights movement was acceptance. It took a while, but gradually the populace of the state showed their acceptance of homosexuality through the recognition of same-sex civil unions - a huge step forward for the gay community, and one approved of, I believe, by the majority of Americans. The drive for acceptance, however, has now changed to a drive for normalcy. What better way for a society to express normalcy, than to call a same-sex union a marriage? This is where the average American really begins to have problems though (again, IMO). Fundamentally, most people inherently know that homosexuality is not normal, much in the same way that downs syndrome is not normal, and to force people to declare it normal by calling gay unions a marriage will always go against what they inherently know to be true, and will actually end up causing (again IMO) backlash against the gay community.
February 9, 201214 yr In the California case, we're not. California gives all rights of marriage to same-sex civil unions. We're really just talking about what the same-sex union is called. In states w/o same-sex civil unions, the actual withholding of rights becomes the issue. I'm all for same-sex civil unions for two reasons: 1) my belief that, generally, one's sexuality is not chosen, and 2) the more people in monogamous relationships, gay or otherwise, the better off society will be. I'm against giving same-sex unions the official title of "marriage." IMO, the push to give them this title is about one thing: pronouncing homosexuality as normal. I grew up in the SF Bay Area in the 70's & 80's. Back then the goal of the gay rights movement was acceptance. It took a while, but gradually the populace of the state showed their acceptance of homosexuality through the recognition of same-sex civil unions - a huge step forward for the gay community, and one approved of, I believe, by the majority of Americans. The drive for acceptance, however, has now changed to a drive for normalcy. What better way for a society to express normalcy, than to call a same-sex union a marriage? This is where the average American really begins to have problems though (again, IMO). Fundamentally, most people inherently know that homosexuality is not normal, much in the same way that downs syndrome is not normal, and to force people to declare it normal by calling gay unions a marriage will always go against what they inherently know to be true, and will actually end up causing (again IMO) backlash against the gay community. I ask this question, b/c on this point I really don't know the answer. Do civil unions have to recognized by other states? I don't believe that they do, and to me that causes an issue. There in lies a main issue here. This isn't about just forcing a view of homosexuality being normal. This is about Congress giving states the ability to pick and choose which legal statuses that they accept from other states. You can't say that you have to accept a welfare application from a person who just established residency last week, but you don't have to recognize the legal union of people that happen to be of the same sex, even though it was legalized by a sister state.
February 9, 201214 yr So when a person says they follow the NT, but not the OT, what they're actually saying is...."Yes, I pick and choose what parts of the Bible I believe and follow, but I'm allowed to".Read Galatians/Hebrews, or search these on here. I've spoken on this topic many times. Jesus is the new law, the old has been done away with. God had a plan but decided to make it better. The Old Testament shows what will happen and has many wonderful stories leading to the New Testament.
February 9, 201214 yr Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Thanks. Now I can finally legalize my polygamous relationship!
February 9, 201214 yr Thanks. Now I can finally legalize my polygamous relationship! Which, as crazy as it sounds, I'm actually ok w/ also.
February 9, 201214 yr Which, as crazy as it sounds, I'm actually ok w/ also. Holy Moly. I've been married 20 years & love my wife, but two? :idunno:
February 9, 201214 yr Which, as crazy as it sounds, I'm actually ok w/ also. Same here. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I couldn't care less if a person had 20 wives. :lol:
February 10, 201214 yr Same here. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I couldn't care less if a person had 20 wives. :lol:King Solomon had over 700 wives and many girlfriends.. 700 Mother-In-Laws..and they say he was a "Wise Man". :idunno:
February 10, 201214 yr Same here. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I couldn't care less if a person had 20 wives. :lol: What about the children of those relationships?
February 10, 201214 yr What about the children of those relationships? Not sure what you mean? :confused:
February 10, 201214 yr Holy Moly. I've been married 20 years & love my wife, but two? :idunno: Wouldn't be my choice, but I'm ok w/ other people doing it.
February 10, 201214 yr Not sure what you mean? :confused: I was responding to UKMF's quote: "Same here. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I couldn't care less if a person had 20 wives." The children of any such relationships would have no to chance to give their consent to being born into such a situation.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.