The politicization of homosexualityFollow

Yes and no, Moeb. New Testament law supercedes Old Testament law when it is specifically does so or is covered by the blanket of grace, but nothing in the New Testament negates or changes the Ten Commandments, for instance.

Up until this moment I have refrained from using biblical law as the standard by which the United States should pass laws on homosexuality. I mentioned it as a frame of reference for my own beliefs-- something it is clear on both in the New and Old Testaments. Yet for all the vaunted seperation of church and State that I hear bandied about, those who does so ignore that that is precisely what this nation's laws are based upon. Read most if not all our founding father's essays and documents and they cite God as being the bedrock upon which laws derive thier authority.

Rail against that all you want, but unless you are willing to revamp the entire Judeo-Christian ethic put into coded Napoleonic form, then this is what you are dealing with-- unless you want to start by having thieves getting their hands chopped off and adulterers being stoned or beheaded (Muslim law) or committing ritual seppeku for things as minor as failing to pay proper homage to your master (ancient Japan). But even the East has incorporated the same law and it's philosophical underpinnings to a large extent today.

Regardless of what Patrician says due to being light headed from spending too much time "gathering wool" the spread of HIV is not one of my concerns as the product of homosexual marriages. I suspect he has spent too much time inhaling the methane off-gassing from the sheep pens when he accuses me of having used that argument-- something I have assiduously avoided.

Totem

Nonsense. This is specifically brought up in Acts 15 when the church leaders meet to discuss things and the topic comes up about those new Christians who feel they must continue to follow the circumcision and dietary restrictions of the Torah. Paul says that the Law has been fulfilled and those Jews who convert are no longer bound by it. Although there is no harm done by those Jews not eating "unclean" if they decide not to, those Jews who do so are in no way sinning. As Paul puts it, Jesus came to relieve the saved from the yoke of the Law which neither they, nor their father, were able to bear. Why try to wear the yoke again after Jesus removed it through his death and ressurection?

Incestual Marriages are Illegal due to the genetic problems with offspring from such a union, last time i checked gays cannot have children so that point is moot.

To prove that is the case marriage of biologically unrelated step siblings is not Illegal.

The only reasons i have seen posted against homosexual marriage is as follows, please add reasons if i miss any so i can answer them.

1.Spread of HIV and STD
2.It's a sin
3.May encourage more people to 'Come out'
4.May lead to people wanting to drive very fast in crowded towns/Get married to chickens
5.May lead to a debate on the limits that our society stretches when allowing marriage i.e siblings

In answer to those points

1. I think we can conclude that if someone get married they are MORE likely to remain faithful to one partner. Therefore would reduce the risk not increase it.

2. You cannot discriminate against non religious individuals just because your beliefs do not match thiers, Freedom of choise and Human rights are too important for that. Would you agree that the treatment of women by Fundamentalist Muslims is correct for instance?

3. Maybe removing fear of persecution is a bad thing for some people but i firmly believe that fear is a bad way to motivate people and merely drives it underground.

4. not going to grace these rather pointless anonogies with a sencible answer, just posting them should be enough to make any reasonable adult see how stupid they are.

5. This is Totems point i believe and IMHO the only worthwhile one made <not surprising since he generally does seem to think a little more before posting> but i cannot see in our lifetime any acceptance of Incest or Beastilality, in two hundred years maybe at the downfall of the age maybe.
Since history repeats itself, and Rome wasn't built in a day and it didn't fall in a day either.

Again if there are other valid reasons by all means post them

Edited, Tue Feb 24 12:35:26 2004 by tarv

why am i discriminating, Christian gays would maintain the right not to get married if it is against thier beliefs, christians who are gay but refuse to act on thier sexuality maintain the right not to be gay so how am i discriminating?



So the opinion that by letting homosexuals get married will lead to people wanting to marry chickens is valid now??

The muslims i am refering to are the ones that force thier women to walk ten paces behind them and never show any naked flesh in public. Not common i agree but there are places in the world where this practice is justified by religion.

Edited, Tue Feb 24 12:59:54 2004 by tarv

We have been through this many times when the arguement reaches this point. Smash and the other "Open Minded" individuals will rise up and say that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, incest or beastiality (actually Smash did this already early on in this thread). Their way of thinking is only to push forward the cause at hand so that they can feel good about themselves.

The point that I have made in the past is the same that Totem is making now. If it is ok for gays to marry then it MUST be ok for me to have more than one wife. But not many of the people championing the cause is willing to accept that gay marriage will usher in a wave of change that they are unwilling to admit they abhor, because they are after all "Open Minded".

I for one am willing to give gays the rights of marriage under federal and state law and at the same time make it the same way for polygamists. It is not my place to judge, I am not against homosexual marriage unless it is done in a church performed by an ordained minister, priest or other religious leader of a Christian organization.

So have at it, but do not get upset when Christians whether Republican or Democrat actually say "not in this country" after all our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Pardon? I already said I couldn't care less if siblings become entitled to whatever governmental benefits are enjoyed under the aegis of "marriage". I'd question my membership in a church which allowed for the holy rite of marriage to be performed on an incestual couple, but from a standpoint of government, if Joe Smith wants to able to claim his sister as a spouse on his taxes, have at it. Hell, if you want your cat to have power of attorney over you in the event of your incapacitation, I don't care.

As I said before, if your big concern is Sam Johnson and Suzie Johnson getting married, and not actually about the gays, let's let the gays get married and worry about Sam and Suzie later (or Sam, Suzie and Mary --- omgz!! Incestual lesbian polygamy!! Oh nos!! The ultimate evil in marriage!). But it's not. You just continue to use incest/bestiality/polygamy as a red herring because it's easier to pick some issue you hope is morally objectionable to me and say "You support this!!" than it is to defend and admit to your homophobia. If you can jump from gender to genetic relation, I could just as easily say "If you support blacks getting married, you have to support gay marriages!" and jump from race to gender. What? Race has nothing to do with gender? But.. but.. you said gender is the same as genetic relations and number of spouses! Race must be the same! And hair color! And income!

Oh.. but that's just silly.

Therein lies the bastardization of the covenant. I advocate taking the marriage out of the resgistry, and opening the registry up to any couple. Just call it something else and everyone should be happy. :)

WTF Empyre did you attually ******* read what i wrote?



as in the law, the state, the govenment.

i am in total agreement that the church service has HUGE moral, personal and emotional significance, i am married after all.
I may not have got married in a church but the service for my marriage had huge mening to me but 'Legally' the only part that mattered was the registry signing after it

do you think Mr Bush really give a **** what the pastor says? you do, your wife does, the church does but the Tax man sure as hell doesn't.

and yes i agree you do need a Certified person to do the ceremony but that is written on the Registry book that if it wasn't then the process is nul and Void.



Edited, Tue Feb 24 14:56:17 2004 by tarv

But, Jophiel, I have given my reasons-- which are religiously based. My only argument is that once you turn it into a secular debate then if one is allowed all must be allowed; a position which you've already stated you are fine with.

This is the crux of the problem. The two sides are using different sets of rules and neither recognises the validity and authority of the other. The only thing I have to offer at this point --which will undoubtedly be rejected by those who disagree with my position --is that God's law supercedes man's law.

Totem

What majority do I speak for? According to some here I am neither creative, witty or original. And what is the obvious MOTO? I must say you lost me there.

Hmm.

o_O
I haven't called you any names, Empyre. I am doing my level best to remain relatively neutral here, as I can see both sides of the coin, and believe that both sides have a legitimate beef.

a) "us" implies no majority.
b) you could hardly offend me. It was meant to point out yet another falacious statement by you re: name calling. Whether it was an offensive name or not, it is still a name. Shame on you.

As a partial aside, let's pretend the age of consent is 30, but some people want to lower it to 16. Would you be able to say that thirty is an antiquated notion and 16 makes sense, or would you be tied up crying that if you support an AoC of 16, you support five year olds shacking up? When the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, does that mean everyone who supported it also supported a voting age of 12? I mean, you can't support lowering the voting age by three years if you can't support lowering it by half!

Or.. maybe.. possibly.. could you look at a situation and say "Yeah, we could tweak this some and change some things without going 100% in the other direction"?