Political Crossfire Forums

[Pimpkie_69]

Now, first of all, I'm not promoting churches performing gay marriage here. In fact, I'm against them doing that (but it should be the choice of the church). It goes against the bible and what it says Christians and therefore the church, should do. I also think that Christian, other religious, and even non-religious institutions should have the right to not marry a gay couple on the grounds that they object to homosexual marriage. But nonetheless gay marriage should be allowed by the government, and Christians should not go against that. By the way, I am Christian myself in case anyone is unclear about that.

The reason that Christians should not oppose gay marriage being legal is simple; The Bible is God's law not the law of the earth. God gives people the ability to choose whether to follow him or not, hence the ability to disobey his laws. If God intended the law of the land to be the same as the law of the Bible, that would go against the decision he made to give humans the freedom of choosing whether to follow him or not. A person marrying someone of their own gender is a sin, but it should not be a crime. It is not physically harmful or life-threatening in any way. There are many sinful things that are legal under human law, and Jesus had no problem with that (but nonetheless encourages people to follow him, but still gives them the choice not to, and suffer the consequences after death), since his teachings are clearly not meant to be the law of the land. When he says things like "give unto Cesar what is Cesar's, give unto the Lord what is the Lord's", he acknowledges the seperate institutions of church and state.

Unlike abortion and euthanasia, which involve human death(and are therefore morally reprehensible, in my opinion, not just because of the word of the bible, but because murder/suicide are wrong under secular law too), and Christians are right to oppose, there is no reason that Christians should oppose gay marriage being allowed by the government. Christians who campaign nonstop against gay marriage being legal discredit worthy causes such as the pro-life cause. Gay marriage being forbidden by the human government goes against God's proclamations that people should follow him, but have the choice not to.

Homosexuality is sinful, but it is not harmful in the same way murder or rape are. I have never heard a Christian say that premarital sex should be illegal, even though practically every Christian views it as immoral. Christians just choose to not have sex before marriage. For that same reason, homosexual marriage should be allowed by the government, and Christians should allow God to pass judgement on the acts of gays who marry each other in the next life, not the government to forbid it now. There is a difference between allowing something and promoting it. And, if you're a Christian, it's simple; don't marry someone of the same gender, or marry two people of the same gender at a Christian church.

[SavannahMan]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: By the way, I am Christian myself in case anyone is unclear about that.

Oh I think your username makes that quite clear. :roll:

[Zangoose]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: Now, first of all, I'm not promoting churches performing gay marriage here. In fact, I'm against them doing that (but it should be the choice of the church). It goes against the bible and what it says Christians and therefore the church, should do. I also think that Christian, other religious, and even non-religious institutions should have the right to not marry a gay couple on the grounds that they object to homosexual marriage. But nonetheless gay marriage should be allowed by the government, and Christians should not go against that. By the way, I am Christian myself in case anyone is unclear about that.

The reason that Christians should not oppose gay marriage being legal is simple; The Bible is God's law not the law of the earth. God gives people the ability to choose whether to follow him or not, hence the ability to disobey his laws. If God intended the law of the land to be the same as the law of the Bible, that would go against the decision he made to give humans the freedom of choosing whether to follow him or not. A person marrying someone of their own gender is a sin, but it should not be a crime. It is not physically harmful or life-threatening in any way. There are many sinful things that are legal under human law, and Jesus had no problem with that (but nonetheless encourages people to follow him, but still gives them the choice not to, and suffer the consequences after death), since his teachings are clearly not meant to be the law of the land. When he says things like "give unto Cesar what is Cesar's, give unto the Lord what is the Lord's", he acknowledges the seperate institutions of church and state.

Unlike abortion and euthanasia, which involve human death(and are therefore morally reprehensible, in my opinion, not just because of the word of the bible, but because murder/suicide are wrong under secular law too), and Christians are right to oppose, there is no reason that Christians should oppose gay marriage being allowed by the government. Christians who campaign nonstop against gay marriage being legal discredit worthy causes such as the pro-life cause. Gay marriage being forbidden by the human government goes against God's proclamations that people should follow him, but have the choice not to.

Homosexuality is sinful, but it is not harmful in the same way murder or rape are. I have never heard a Christian say that premarital sex should be illegal, even though practically every Christian views it as immoral. Christians just choose to not have sex before marriage. For that same reason, homosexual marriage should be allowed by the government, and Christians should allow God to pass judgement on the acts of gays who marry each other in the next life, not the government to forbid it now. There is a difference between allowing something and promoting it. And, if you're a Christian, it's simple; don't marry someone of the same gender, or marry two people of the same gender at a Christian church.
:roll: :ws: :lm: :blah: I think I covered it.

[Pimpkie_69]

Don't call posts stupid without giving reasons. The majority of posters here are above that, even the ones who piss people off.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Whats Christianty got to do with opposition to gay marriage? The opponents I see of same-sex marriage argue it is a bad policy because of the detremental effect it would have on marriage, family and other critical societal norms.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Whats Christianty got to do with opposition to gay marriage? The opponents I see of same-sex marriage argue it is a bad policy because of the detremental effect it would have on marriage, family and other critical societal norms.

Sorry marriage was a critical societal norm?

"Hi Britney, how do you feel about ruining a critical form of society?"

"Em, like yeah, what? *chews gum*" - the voice of married straight couples everywhere.

You know the anti-gay marriage lobby should endorse her as a mascot.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Well, I don't quite understand how marriage is protected by not allowing gay marriage? :?

[Pimpkie_69]

It's so funny to see all these hypocrates who have divorced their wives or husbands, and cheated on them before that, talking about how gay marriage will ruin the "sanctity of marriage". The sanctity of marriage depends on the individuals that are part of marriage, they are the ones who need to preserve it amongst themselves, not the government.

But nonetheless, while I have no problem with gay marriage being legal, you won't see me campaigning for it. If 80% of people in a certain state are against gay marriage being legal there, then fine. The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.

[Enoch]

Pimpkie_69 wrote:
But nonetheless, while I have no problem with gay marriage being legal, you won't see me campaigning for it. If 80% of people in a certain state are against gay marriage being legal there, then fine. The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.

No offense pimpkie, but if you won't campaign for it, who will? One of the problems that the gay rights movement is having is that attitude. So many straight people think "I'm all for gay rights, but I don't want to let my voice be heard in support of it."

That leads others to believe that it is ONLY gay men and women that are on our side. If more straight people would stand up, be counted, and let the people know that gay men and women everywhere have support, then things might change.

While I am not usually one for trite sayings, this one rings true. "If your not a part of the solution, your a part of the problem."

[F'losrix]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.
Why should we have to? You're asking us to abandon family (my partner & I have two sets of elderly parents to worry about), friends & sometimes entire careers in order to move to places where we don't know anyone and would have to basically start over - just to get married. It's a completely unfair burden when my straight neighbors can get married anywhere they like and don't have to give up any of those things. Being gay is difficult enough - we shouldn't have to sacrifice our entire lives for recognition of our marriages.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Pimpkie_69 wrote: The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.
Why should we have to? You're asking us to abandon family (my partner & I have two sets of elderly parents to worry about), friends & sometimes entire careers in order to move to places where we don't know anyone and would have to basically start over - just to get married. It's a completely unfair burden when my straight neighbors can get married anywhere they like and don't have to give up any of those things. Being gay is difficult enough - we shouldn't have to sacrifice our entire lives for recognition of our marriages.

Why do you want them recongized? Is it just the taxes thing? (It can't be the will, it can't be visitation rights... you know as well as I that those are not denied to anyone.)

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Pimpkie_69 wrote: The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.
Why should we have to? You're asking us to abandon family (my partner & I have two sets of elderly parents to worry about), friends & sometimes entire careers in order to move to places where we don't know anyone and would have to basically start over - just to get married. It's a completely unfair burden when my straight neighbors can get married anywhere they like and don't have to give up any of those things. Being gay is difficult enough - we shouldn't have to sacrifice our entire lives for recognition of our marriages.

Why do you want them recongized? Is it just the taxes thing? (It can't be the will, it can't be visitation rights... you know as well as I that those are not denied to anyone.) Taxes are a part of it. As are reasons such as medical decision making for injured partners, without having to carry a living will around with us from state to state.

But, above all, it is simply the recognition that we are just as important as our straight counterparts that matters to me, as I am sure it does to others.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Pimpkie_69 wrote: The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.
Why should we have to? You're asking us to abandon family (my partner & I have two sets of elderly parents to worry about), friends & sometimes entire careers in order to move to places where we don't know anyone and would have to basically start over - just to get married. It's a completely unfair burden when my straight neighbors can get married anywhere they like and don't have to give up any of those things. Being gay is difficult enough - we shouldn't have to sacrifice our entire lives for recognition of our marriages.

Why do you want them recongized? Is it just the taxes thing? (It can't be the will, it can't be visitation rights... you know as well as I that those are not denied to anyone.)
Right, and it snows at the equator every third full moon in the month of August.

Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

[Gus]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Whats Christianty got to do with opposition to gay marriage? The opponents I see of same-sex marriage argue it is a bad policy because of the detremental effect it would have on marriage, family and other critical societal norms.
Those opponents fail to realize that Hitler and his Nazi party viewed Jews as detrimental to society as well. This doesn't mean you ban it. It's only "detrimental" to society because they are intolerant of others and wish to force their beliefs on everybody else. I view that as immoral...not gay marriage.

[Enoch]

derEikopf wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Whats Christianty got to do with opposition to gay marriage? The opponents I see of same-sex marriage argue it is a bad policy because of the detremental effect it would have on marriage, family and other critical societal norms.
Those opponents fail to realize that Hitler and his Nazi party viewed Jews as detrimental to society as well. This doesn't mean you ban it. It's only "detrimental" to society because they are intolerant of others and wish to force their beliefs on everybody else. I view that as immoral...not gay marriage.

Most of the "gay marriage is harmful to society" folks are hard-pressed to come up with any quantitative data to support their claim. And, those who do usually come up with biased data that is easily refuted. They all go back to "it's immoral," "it's wrong," or the tired "slippery slope" argument that has no basis in reality.

Until people can actually post hard, quantitative, data to support claims, I will continue to look at their arguments as being, in the words of Shakespeare, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Pimpkie_69]

I'm just saying, even if gay marriage should be legal, making it so is risky and dangerous. I wouldn't want to be campaigning for gay marriage to be legalized, in rural Texas, because I'd get the sh*t beaten out of me by some angry redneck. Even though I believe gay marriage should be legal, there's a million more important causes to stand up for right now. Gays have a powerful voice in America, they can stand up for themselves.

Canada and Massachussets are one thing, Texas is another. Even though gay marriage SHOULD be legal across America, good f**king luck getting that to become a reality. Pigs will fly and play hockey in hell before gay marriage is legal in Texas.

[Enoch]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: I'm just saying, even if gay marriage should be legal, making it so is risky and dangerous. I wouldn't want to be campaigning for gay marriage to be legalized, in rural Texas, because I'd get the sh*t beaten out of me by some angry redneck. Even though I believe gay marriage should be legal, there's a million more important causes to stand up for right now. Gays have a powerful voice in America, they can stand up for themselves.

Canada and Massachussets are one thing, Texas is another. Even though gay marriage SHOULD be legal across America, good f**king luck getting that to become a reality. Pigs will fly and play hockey in hell before gay marriage is legal in Texas.

Although I agree with your premise that gay marriage is more likely in a socially liberal state, like Mass., than in a socially conservative one like Texas, I have no doubt that gay marriage WILL be legal nationwide within my lifetime.

It may take 15, 20, or 25 years to get to that point, but it will happen.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Pimpkie_69 wrote: The gays can just go to Masachussets, San Fransisco, or Canada, and get married there.
Why should we have to? You're asking us to abandon family (my partner & I have two sets of elderly parents to worry about), friends & sometimes entire careers in order to move to places where we don't know anyone and would have to basically start over - just to get married. It's a completely unfair burden when my straight neighbors can get married anywhere they like and don't have to give up any of those things. Being gay is difficult enough - we shouldn't have to sacrifice our entire lives for recognition of our marriages.

Why do you want them recongized? Is it just the taxes thing? (It can't be the will, it can't be visitation rights... you know as well as I that those are not denied to anyone.)
Right, and it snows at the equator every third full moon in the month of August.

Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

:? Everyone makes those arrangements, unless they are idiots.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Quote:
Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

:? Everyone makes those arrangements, unless they are idiots.
Blatantly ignorinig the substance of the question. Marriage takes care of the basics, absent any overriding legal arrangements. Why should gay people be denied these default protections?

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Quote:
Why should gay people have to go through extra and expensive legal arrangments that heterosexuals don't?

:? Everyone makes those arrangements, unless they are idiots.
Blatantly ignorinig the substance of the question. Marriage takes care of the basics, absent any overriding legal arrangements. Why should gay people be denied these default protections?

Gays are not denied them. People who are not married are denied the "default protections." Gays simply choose not to be married in the legal definition of the word. If they choose such then they are going to have to do extra things. You need to understand that you are not being denied anything. You just decided you don't want to be married in the legal sense of the word but you want your defintion of marriage to mean something. Well it doesn't. Tough luck. Now you have to change a majority in your own state to think like you.

Again, if you are getting ready to enter into matrimony and do not get these arrangements setup -- outside the "default" -- you are an idiot.