Defining Marriage In The Constitution

[roid]

Fine you win.

i win what?

I'm not playing a game here. A win for me would be either you or me saying "oh, now i understand". For someone to learn something (incl myself)

[Spidey]

The argument.

[roid]

WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME

[TIGERassault]

Spidey doesn't understand how debates work, just leave it at that.

[Dakatsu]

I really like Foil and Kilarin's idea of giving it back to the churches...

Except it is going to feel REALLY wierd when I go to \"marry\" my girlfriend, and they pronounce us \"civil union'd\", it just won't feel right... (Me: Agnostic, Her: Very Non-Religious Catholic)

[Zuruck]

1. Among adults who have been married, born again Christians and non-Christians have essentially the same probability of divorce.

From:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page ... dateID=103

I'm sure you've heard of the Barna Group. They did a study in '99 and one just recently where it was surprising to find out that Evangelical Christians have the HIGHEST divorce rate in all demographics, INCLUDING NON-CHRISTIANS!

Since when did we let such a small portion of society hijack our entire country? There are some very interesting statistics on that site, check it out.

[Spidey]

Spidey doesn't understand how debates work, just leave it at that.

Say what?

Are you saying debates should go on forever, or that they should be ended by insulting someone like Roid likes to do?

I accepted his argument…what more do you want?

Roid…you get a cookie…beyond that is expecting too much…you should be happy you won the debate…anything beyond that is just ego stroking.

[Tunnelcat]

If you believe that homosexuality is a choice you really need to meet more gay people and let them tell you about their life; how they grew up and when they found out they were gay. The vast majority would be very happy to have grown up straight and most at some time in their life have tried to live as if they were not gay. Usually it didn't work.
If you eliminate the "choice" aspect of being gay then you should see the reasons to be accepting of the differences in individuals and see the rational of preventing harm to those that do no harm to others. So gays get the "right" to live without being harmed simply for being gay.

I don't know how many gay people you've met, but a vast majority I've met knew that they are different by the age of six. Even kids that young can tell when someone is 'different', especially boys, who tend to pick on or bully them from grade school on up. Girls can get away with it longer. They are just perceived and tolerated as 'tomboys'. Even young children have 'gaydar', they just don't understand what it is that's different.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I intend to reply more to earlier statements in this topic, when I get a chance, but I just wanted to deal with something:

The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner. None worse than any other. A Christian church that is truly operating in the Spirit of Christ should be actively out searching for homosexuals and inviting them to come and fellowship with them. Christ said "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick" And Christian Doctrine declares that we are all deathly ill with sin, and in desperate need of the same cure. Christ.

Now hold on, there. You don't find what you're saying in the Bible. The church is a place for saints (Note: the Catholic church departed from the Biblical meaning of the word "saint," and invented a new definition), not dead sinners.

And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are to have the gospel preached to them, not to be fellowshipped with.

For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

You could bring up the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:24, but that doesn't negate the whole purpose of the assembly of the saints--the church--which is to build up the believers, not to be a venue for indirect conversion. A church that is "truly operating in the Spirit of Christ" is not going to conduct themselves contrary to His design for the church.

I'd suggest you also read 1 Cor 5, whenever you look into what I'm saying.

[roid]

Spidey doesn't understand how debates work, just leave it at that.

Say what?

Are you saying debates should go on forever, or that they should be ended by insulting someone like Roid likes to do?

I accepted his argument…what more do you want?

Roid…you get a cookie…beyond that is expecting too much…you should be happy you won the debate…anything beyond that is just ego stroking.

it seems more that you just got tired of me.

Yes, debates should go on forever until people learn things, until they can learn all the points and can debate the ideas themselves internally in their own head. Debate can be deferred, but they're never really OVER until ideas (not debaters) triumph over other ideas using logic, in people's heads. I believe what we do here is strive to make other debaters fully understand our point of view - our "idea". The debate is only won in people's heads, and that can generally only be done if all sides' points are properly understood - this is an almost endless struggle as communication is never perfect, subjects and ideas are always evolving, and one person cannot read all of the information in the world (everyone is somewhat nieve, without exception).

I'm trying to figure out what just happened here. It seems you just got tired, in which case the debate isn't over - just deferred, and i'll have to keep on my toes since we're not really MOVING ON.
Will i have to keep on my toes? I get the feeling, yes. As i'm not getting the feeling you're conceeding because you understand my POV and have sorted out the debate in your own head, but instead because you're currently too tired to understand what's going on.
Don't worry, i've been there

I don't know how many gay people you've met, but...

i might be jumping the gun here. But it seems that you and Ford Prefect are actually in perfect agreement , you might have skimmed. Maybe i'm just misinterpreting your tone.

[Kilarin]

The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner.

Now hold on, there. You don't find what you're saying in the Bible.

Yes you do.

Mt 9:10-13 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are to have the gospel preached to them, not to be fellowshipped with.

You will note that the exact complaint that the Pharisees are making in the above text is that Christ is fellowshiping with these sinners.

But we can take it further. Who composed Christ's "church" while He was here on earth? Obviously we could debate about the multitudes, but certainly the 12 disciples would qualify?

And yet, ALL of them were guilty of persistent, repeated, known sin. Pride.
Mark 9:33-34 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

And note that the above makes it abundantly clear that they are not only guilty of pride, but are well aware that it is a sin, otherwise they would not have been ashamed and resisted telling Christ what they were doing. And these were not just people Christ was preaching to, but were CLEARLY those he fellowshiped with on a regular basis. And let's not forget, that right up until the last minute, Judas was among those twelve. He wasn't thrown out. He left.

Everyone in the Church is a sinner
1 Jn 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Now then, that said, you are absolutely correct that church discipline has it's place, as 1 Cor 5 makes clear. A wise person in my church once told me: "We have very low standards for fellowship, anyone is welcome to come here and hear to word of the Lord, just so long as they are not disruptive. We have higher standards for membership, and the very highest standards of all for those who hold office"

This issue was addressed in the sermon I listened to just this Sabbath. The preacher said that the church is a HOSPITAL for sin, not a hospice. A hospice is a place you go to be made comfortable while you die. A hospital is a place you go to get well. The church should absolutely welcome sinners, that is what it is THERE for. But it is NOT to tell them that sin is ok.

[Foil]

I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are... not to be fellowshipped with.

Where are you getting this, Thorne? It certainly can't be from the example of Christ.

Christ not only spent significant time with sinners and unbelievers (prostitutes, convicts, tax collectors, the hyprocritical pharisees, and others), he even spent time with the culturally 'untouchable' (women, children, the sick, crippled, even lepers)!

The idea that "the Church is only for believers" is completely backwards from what Christ said:

...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

As Kilarin pointed out, you're quite right that the I Corinthians verses you mentioned speak to the importance of church discipline, but to turn that into a policy of church exclusiveness runs contrary to the compassionate nature of God we see in Christ.

------------------

Back to the subject:

From my experience (ask me, I'll tell you a couple of stories), the Christian church has often done a horrible job of being Christ-like when it comes to how it treats homosexual people. Rather than being open-armed as Jesus was, the church has nearly always alienated them.

[CDN_Merlin]

What does the bible say about priests molesting young boys in the Catholic church?

[Foil]

C'mon, Merlin. That was an off-topic \"shot\". You should know better than to do that.

[Kilarin]

What does the bible say about priests molesting young boys in the Catholic church? Rolling Eyes

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

[TechPro]

Edit: Kilarin beat me to it.

[Spidey]

Roid… Don’t take it personally I didn’t get tired of you, I got tired of being insulted (déjà vu) and having my point being dismissed outright even with documentation to back it up. The inability to reach common ground on the smaller points, leaves the debate at a loggerhead with nowhere to go. I admitted marriage could be used for purposes other than building families…but you refused to see my point about its importance in forming families. So see…

Without conceding the debate it would have started to take a turn for the worse…because I have already been called a Homophobe, idiot, retarded and a stupid troll…so my options were to start to fight back with the same tactics or concede like a gentleman.

Let me give you some advice…try to be a little more gracious when you win an argument…nobody like a sore winner.

[/lecture]

BTW your point about infertile couples…there is no reason to believe that medical science could not find a way to let them have children sometime during their childbearing years. They can also adopt.

[Sergeant Thorne]

What does the bible say about priests molesting young boys in the Catholic church?

And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

But who's talking about Catholics? They don't follow scripture. They could worship a created woman as a God, or try to buy their way out of God's judgment and it wouldn't effect me.

[Foil]

This isn't a Catholic vs. Protestant debate either, guys. Try and stay on-topic?

[Herculosis]

This isn't a Catholic vs. Protestant debate either, guys. Try and stay on-topic?

Sorry to degrade further... not my intent. But as someone who has spent more than 20 years each as a Roman Catholic and as a Protestant, I would be very interested in a civil (yeah, right!) discussion on that very topic.

[Foil]

A thread comparing/contrasting Catholic and Protestant perspectives is in order, then. Feel free to start one!

... But let's not have that debate in here, where the topic is marriage and homosexuality.

[Sergeant Thorne]

In the interest of not cluttering this topic: Kilarin, Foil, perhaps you would consider my reply in Christ's Church: Sinners, Saints, Both?

[Alter-Fox]

Oh, and on the topic of opinions... everything said in this topic is undeniably right and true, as well as being absolutely wrong and misinformed, and I just haven't figured out how yet.

Finally, in farewell to all of you: YOUR SOUL IS A CAVERN OF LIES!!!!

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think you've happened upon the wrong BB.

[roid]

huh?

[Ford Prefect]

It has been stated in this thread that marriage is for control of reproduction. Nonsense that is what sex is for. That some forms of sex are unsuccessful is another (related) issue. Marriage is about legitimizing the offspring and defining the legal relationship of a couple. I'm glad that is settled and we can move on from there.
So far we have have seen it said that gay couples can't have children and so shouldn't be married. Well infertile couples face the same issue and we let them get married. True? And have children (adopted or by artificial insemination). True? And the children are considered legitimate. True?
Most of the posters here are men and men look at two guys getting it on as icky. Fair enough so let's skip gay male couples. Two women getting it on is however is looked on by the majority of men as sexually stimulating. (why is also another thread)
So let's look at a few less icky possibilities and see how they rate with the crowd here.

Case 1: Two women; one is transgendered to the point of having done counselling, hormone therapy and surgery and is now medically certifiable as a male. We have a Mommy and a Daddy that look like that even with their clothes off. The still fertile member of the couple has artificial insemination and has a child. Remember you don't need a clinic and permission from some agency for artificial insemination just a willing male and a turkey baster.
Case 1 Married OK, Not OK? Remember they are going to have a child no matter what you decide. It is the child's status you are deciding.

Case 2: The transgendered member has not gone \"all the way\" and without clothes is identifiably female but not by any other method. We have a Mommy and a Daddy as long as you don't look too deep.
Case 2 Married OK, Not OK?

Case 3: One of them is a bull dyke and the other a lipstick lesbian. Now the dyke is more masculine than most hockey players you know but is still identifiably female with her clothes on to the discerning person. There is still a Mommy and a Daddy but it's just not so clear cut.
Case 3 Married OK, Not OK?

Case 4 Two lipstick lesbians or two bull dykes.
Case 4 Married OK, Not OK. Remember either or both can have as many kids as they like and the kids are innocent bystanders as they grow up.

Case 5: A child is born a hermaphrodite (look it up as a medical condition) and for some reason the doctors/parents leave them that way. When they reach adulthood who can they marry legally? Who decides? What do you base the decision on; appearance or sexuality?
Case 5 Married OK, Not OK, OK if you approve of the choice of partner?

Personally I think you need to set SV cheats to 1 and enter godmode if you want to start deciding who marries who.

Yes Kilarin I agree totally with you. Gays are sinners in the eyes of the church as are we all. Whether or not this particular sin means you cannot be a member of a particular church is up the that church and I would never expect any particular religion or sect to acknowledge as married any couple or group they don't want to. What the government should do is another question.

Edit: I originally was had Roid as the poster of \"we are all sinners. Oops. I knew that seemed wrong.

[Spidey]

Maybe we should just stick to generic gays.

[Foil]

Thought-provoking scenarios, Ford.

Whether or not [being homosexual] means you cannot be a member of a particular church is up the that church and I would never expect any particular religion or sect to acknowledge as married any couple or group they don't want to. What the government should do is another question.

Exactly!

[Spidey]

Marriage is about legitimizing the offspring and defining the legal relationship of a couple.

You know that sounds familiar, where did I hear that?….oh yea it was “ME”

[Bet51987]

I can give you my opinion because your cases don't change my feelings on marriage vs civil unions.

Case 1. They get legally married because they \"fit in\" with the model that young children see daily. There is no embarrassment, or finger pointing, when the parents bring the child to school and stand in front of the class. The child will not suffer any mental cruelty from his classmates. Everyone is happy.

Case 2. Same as Case 1.

Case 3,4,5. Civil Union. Not allowed to adopt children.

Bettina

[Kilarin]

For a scenario that can really give you the heeby jeebies, check out Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
So picture this, an individual has XY chromosomes, that makes them undeniably male, right?
But if they happen to have AIS, their body is immune to testosterone. So instead of developing normally as a male, they develop into an EXTERNAL female. They will have feminine external genitalia, but no uterus. Internally they have undescended testicles.

Now then, since these xy individuals are, in the most extreme cases, absolutely IMMUNE to testosterone, their body actually becomes hyper feminized. They often end up as models because their bodies are extra tall, but with very, very feminized features. These xy \"boys\" often grow up as girls, with no clue at all that they are anything unusual.

In one case that I saw in a PBS documentary, the AIS person had been happily married for several years before \"she/he\" decided to go to the gynecologist for the first time and inquire as to why she and her husband could not get pregnant. The gynecologists answer was, \"Well, it's because you are a man\". You can imagine the shock. She? and her husband simply decided to ignore the discovery and go on with life as they had been.

There is also a variation of AIS that is even more horrifying. These poor kids are only partially immune to testosterone. The affect is that they have external female genitalia at birth, and until puberty. But then at puberty, when the testes kick in and the BIG dose of testosterone hits, it overwhelms the system and, believe it or not, their external genitalia responds to that massive hit of testosterone and undergoes the changes it was supposed to do in the womb. If you think YOUR teenage years were messed up, just try to imagine being a girl up until about 14 and then suddenly finding that you are growing a penis. Yikes!

Gender issues can be COMPLICATED, and they only get MORE complicated the more we learn about genetics.

[Ford Prefect]

Bette: Married by who? Civil union differs from married how? What role does the government play in each?

Spidey: You get a cookie.

[Bet51987]

Bette: Married by who? Civil union differs from married how? What role does the government play in each?

Sorry... Instead of "Civil Union" I should have said "Partnership" so you would have Marriage or Partnership as the only two choices of a legal union. I want to reserve the word Marriage to define a legal union between a man and a women as I defined previously. It doesn't matter whether they are able to have children or not, whether they are religious or not, or if one had a sex change operation. I don't tie the word marriage to the church.

Partnership would be reserved for any other union of two human beings and would have the same legals as married couples have when it comes to money, property, taxes, etc, the benefits are the same.

The exception between the two would be that the partnership would not be allowed to adopt children. Never, ever, and that goes for singles too. Yes, there will be situations like death of a parent, etc, but those would be the exception.. not the rule.

Elton John and his partner are a good example of what I mean. Rosie O'Donald is a bad one.

Bee

[Ford Prefect]

Thanks Bette for the clarification.
There is an imbalance in your scenario in that any couple or group that includes one fertile female cannot be prevented by law from conceiving and raising children while a couple or group that does not is prevented from raising a child by your outlawing adoption.
There is probably no feasible way to correct that imbalance other than allowing adoption by couples or groups that are judged to be capable of raising a child but that decision is never going to be easy and never going to be made by anyone that should be allowed to do it.
Just curious but if you could just wave a wand and make it so would you prevent partnerships from having natural children? Or would you prefer to wave a wand and have those couples that are capable of raising children responsibly be revealed regardless of sexual orientation?

[Bet51987]

... Just curious but if you could just wave a wand and make it so would you prevent partnerships from having natural children? Or would you prefer to wave a wand and have those couples that are capable of raising children responsibly be revealed regardless of sexual orientation?

I would prevent it. I would not allow two gays to have natural or adopted children.

I don't care how capable two partnered parents are in raising a child. It's the wrong environment which will ultimately leave that child with physcological problems that no doctor will be able to fix. I had fingers pointing at me for not having a mother and had to see a doctor for half my life but I can't imagine what it would be like walking into school followed by two truck driver dads. I would probably still love them for having me but I would have cut my wrists.

I accept homosexuals for who they are and completely support gay unions, but only if they realize that they aren't normal and that kids would suffer if they think they are.

Bee

[Kilarin]

only if they realize that they aren't normal and that kids would suffer if they think they are.

You seem to have a lot of worries about being normal. You aren't. And I consider that a compliment. Normal people are boring.

Believe me, as a child, I was called a lot of things, but normal was never on the list. Was I miserable? Sometimes. I also enjoyed myself more than any of the "normal" kids ever did. And I certainly wouldn't trade places with any of them, Then or now.

I get very frightened when people start trying to decide what is normal and what is not and judging who can raise children by that. Dawkins thinks that religious people are not normal and that children raised in religious homes can not be happy. There are crowds and crowds of people who believe that atheists are not normal and should not be allowed to raise kids. Atheist children DO have trouble in school, at least down here in the south. But then ALL children get teased and abused in school.

Who decides what is "normal"? A few years back having a working mom wasn't normal.

Even today I hear the argument made that mixed race families are a mistake because the children will never fit in anywhere and will be teased by everyone.

Should mixed race families be prevented from having children?

I will be happy to stand up and fight for your right to say what kind of families you think should have children and what kinds shouldn't. But as soon as you want to legislate, I'm going to have to back away from the issue, even if I happen to agree with you.

I would probably still love them for having me but I would have cut my wrists.

That would have been a big permanent solution to a small temporary problem. And a loss to the world and all of us.

[Ford Prefect]

I respect your opinion Bette. I don't really agree but that's no big deal. Thanks for sharing it so frankly.

I get very frightened when people start trying to decide what is normal and what is not and judging who can raise children by that.

My daughter is 6 feet tall, her boyfriend is 7 feet tall. Are they normal? No.(outside of my family anyway. She is my shortest child) Should that stop their romance or possible marriage and family? Of course not. Well not in this society anyway but yeah I hear you Kilarin I don't like it when someone has to decide what's normal and then approve it.

[Foil]

I have to agree with Kilarin on this one.

\"The children will have it rough because of perceptions about their parents\" is a poor reason to completely restrict them from being parents. As Kilarin mentioned, that same logic has been used for mixed-race marriages, and the argument just doesn't stand.

Bet, here's why your decision on the fictional \"wand\" scenario seems so out of touch to me: It essentially makes the statement that suffering because of cultural perceptions of normality (teasing, etc.) outweights suffering because of bad parenting (abuse, neglect, and divorce, just to mention three).

Do you really think the kid who suffers teasing and bullying about his/her homosexual parents really has it worse than the kid who is being abused and neglected by poor/absent parents?

Yes, they both certainly suffer, but take it from someone who's been a teacher in an urban school where less than half the kids didn't have both parents, and many more had no parents at all... kids who grow up with bad or absent parenting are far more screwed up than the ones who got teased and bullied but had parental support.

[Edit:]
Bet, sorry if I sound harsh; I don't mean to be. I just find it strange that you seem to feel that teasing and bullying is worse than poor/absent parenting, when that runs so contrary to my own experience.

Plus, from what you've shared about your own experience, I think you're a very good example of this. You were treated horribly by peers, but with the support of even a single parent, you've turned out to be a top-notch young adult. There are very few people your age who turn out as well as you have, and I get the impression that much of that is due to your father. Don't underestimate the power of a good parent, even a single one, or a non-\"normal\" one.
[/Edit]

[Testiculese]

\"Normal\" was the wrong choice of word by Bee. She should have used \"Natural\"

It's natural for a man/woman to have and raise a child. It's not natural for two men to have a child. It's not natural for two women to have a child.

The only problem I see with gays raising kids is that the kid will not understand what is natural and what is not, and will be getting wrong or mixed messages for their own sexual orientation and how they are supposed to act. Kids try to emulate their parents, and having two gay dads that put the child in gay perspective is going to screw that kid up good.

(Especially considering how flaming some of the guys get. Just because you like men doesn't mean you have to take the valley girl stereotype and apply pink glitter. These people will adopt a boy and buy it Barbie dolls all his life.)

What throws it off is, two women raising a kid IS natural. Way back when, in the tribe, the women raiseed the children and gathered food, the men went out and hunted food and defended the tribe. Men didn't really interact with the children all that much until they were old enough to start learning how to hunt, etc. The women were the focal point in children's lives. This still holds true today. Men put more effort into it nowadays, but it's still the woman who does most of the raising/bonding. Put a baby anywhere and all of a sudden, there are 15 women (and one man) standing around it.

I would be against most gay adoptions, only because it's not good for the child. The argument that single-parents is not good for the child doesn't hold water here, because this is a forced, artificial situation, where the single parent is not.

[TIGERassault]

The only bad thing about not being normal in this case is that the child would likely to be bullied in school about it. If he was in a school full of scumbags, that is. But of course, sacrifices have to be made to be able to change anything in society.
However, that's only a point against non-couples having a child, and isn't any sort of argument against gay marriage.

"Normal" was the wrong choice of word by Bee. She should have used "Natural"

It's natural for a man/woman to have and raise a child. It's not natural for two men to have a child. It's not natural for two women to have a child.

It's also not natural to live in concrete houses, have an education system, or even have machines or computers. 'Normal' was a better word.