The question of gay marriage

[AC2014]

C.S. Lewis was opposed to the idea of divorce but he said this re: (at the time) the controversial subject in his day:

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Wise words that can certainly be applied to the issue of today re: gay unions.

While I would certainly say that homosexuality according to the Bible is a sin -- it might not be the job of Christians to attempt to enforce their understanding of marriage on a non-Christian culture. Within the church? That's a different matter.

Thoughts?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Wise words indeed.

 

[hollywood]

Absolutely agree with those words.

I 100% support a church's, temple's, synagogues, etc. right not to perform a gay marriage, recognize a gay marriage or accept it as legitimate. Just as I accept that any similarly situated religious institution can do the same with interracial, inter-faith or any other combination it sees fit to object as an invalid coupling.

My ONLY concern is that the Govt cannot simply pick and choose who they extend benefits to on a basis that is not deeply rooted in logic, fact or compelling societal interest, via the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

 

[squeak]

True
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Pretty much agree.

 

[MegaPoke]

Good post AC
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[okstpsy]

I can appreciate that. Its important for others to realize that we can't force our values onto others and hold them accountable to them.

 

[Poketologist]

Nicely stated, excellent reference from CS Lewis.

 

[Cordellhall83]

Semi-related question: Why does the government give tax breaks to married couples? I understand dependents...the helping out the family thing. But I just don't see why the break for two individuals who have a legit marriage license. Why are married people so special to the IRS? I'm sure we would still have the homosexual debate about marriage...but at least it would be on less topic within the discussion. When I was single, I never understood why I was being penalized. Any tax experts know why?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by Cordellhall83:
Semi-related question: Why does the government give tax breaks to married couples? I understand dependents...the helping out the family thing. But I just don't see why the break for two individuals who have a legit marriage license. Why are married people so special to the IRS? I'm sure we would still have the homosexual debate about marriage...but at least it would be on less topic within the discussion. When I was single, I never understood why I was being penalized. Any tax experts know why?

Married couples who both work and earn salary actually generally pay MORE federal inocme tax than they would if NOT married.

 

[Ostate4life]

I would love to offer a rebuttal or argument for this but I can't. I have changed my mind more on this one issue in the last year than I have on any issue in my life. I think this is a great quote.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GoPokes43]

Originally posted by Cordellhall83:
Semi-related question: Why does the government give tax breaks to married couples? I understand dependents...the helping out the family thing. But I just don't see why the break for two individuals who have a legit marriage license. Why are married people so special to the IRS? I'm sure we would still have the homosexual debate about marriage...but at least it would be on less topic within the discussion. When I was single, I never understood why I was being penalized. Any tax experts know why?



It's called the marriage tax PENALTY. No tax break except in some circumstances where one spouse doesn't work or has relatively low income. In that instance, I think the reasoning for the very modest benefit is that when one spouse stays at home that spouse may be raising the kids and the dependent exemption for that spouse makes the same amount of sense as getting an exemption for the kids. As to why married couples are penalized otherwise, I think the thought was that two people living together share some expenses that people living apart would not share and therefore have more disposable income after expenses at the same income levels. The penalty used to be worse, but much of the tax rate thresholds are now close to double for married as compared to a single.

 

[BvillePoker]

I don't think the real hangup with same sex marriages being recognized is really a tax or IRS thing. It is more the fact that there are spousal rights recognized under law for a lot of institutions. For example if you are a legally recognized "spouse" you can make some medical decisions for an incompacitated person without jumping through a bunch of legal hurdles. Insurance, death benefits, wills and estates, etc. "Spouses" can be defaulted certain priviledges by law that same sex "relationships" do not get defaulted.

 

[Been Jammin]

I still don't understand why this is an issue. Why are there heterosexuals who adamantly oppose same-sex marriage? In what way does it negatively affect them? They know homosexuals exist. They know that many of them are in strongly committed relationships with each other. What changes (for the heterosexual who is opposed) when they are allowed to marry?

 

[squeak]

BJ what about the children? If my 6 yr old son sees two men kissing he could turn gay.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[okstpsy]

Squeak, I don't know how to take you. That's got the be in blue

 

[PDT816]

Originally posted by Been Jammin:
I still don't understand why this is an issue. Why are there heterosexuals who adamantly oppose same-sex marriage? In what way does it negatively affect them? They know homosexuals exist. They know that many of them are in strongly committed relationships with each other. What changes (for the heterosexual who is opposed) when they are allowed to marry?

When I read posts like this I have serious doubts about whether anyone ever thinks for themselves any more. Then someone else drops in and claims that people that have moral convictions against homosexuality are a bunch of mouthbreathers who think gay is contagious.

 

[Headhunter]

I dont care if gays want to marry or if five people marry a pig.

But if anyone thinks that gay activists would be content with there being a seperate standard for government and letting religous groups have their own standard they are fooling themselves.

 

[squeak]

Psy it's blue
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Alpha Poke]

Originally posted by PDT816:

Originally posted by Been Jammin:
I still don't understand why this is an issue. Why are there heterosexuals who adamantly oppose same-sex marriage? In what way does it negatively affect them? They know homosexuals exist. They know that many of them are in strongly committed relationships with each other. What changes (for the heterosexual who is opposed) when they are allowed to marry?

When I read posts like this I have serious doubts about whether anyone ever thinks for themselves any more. Then someone else drops in and claims that people that have moral convictions against homosexuality are a bunch of mouthbreathers who think gay is contagious.

Then along comes a magical little four ft. Jew and everything is right in the world.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Originally posted by Poketologist:
Nicely stated, excellent reference from CS Lewis.

Yep

 

[AC2014]

Why did this get moved to the political board?

 

[MegaPoke]

Kinda wondered that too AC
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[PDT816]

because it's a political topic the same as the other 1069 gay marriage topics that have been discussed on the political board.

 

[MegaPoke]

Originally posted by PDT816:
because it's a political topic the same as the other 1069 gay marriage topics that have been discussed on the political board.

It struck me as more of a philosophical discussion than a political one - otherwise, I would've moved it myself. No big deal, but it seemed like the NSB was a better place for it at the time.

Anyway...

AC, and anyone else who I've seen at one time or another quoting Bible verses to support the "Hate the sin, love the sinner" point of view, I would really love to get your take on this article I came across indirectly today. It seems to me to apply logical context and correct translations to the usual verses used in this way and kinda seems to paint them in a completely different light than the idea that God is specifically condemning consensual homosexual adult relationships. But, I am no theologian. Where is this wrong?

CLICK

 

[squeak]

That's a good read. Interesting point made that if homosexuals act in a heterosexual manner, they are in fact sinning bc they are going against nature, or God.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[PDT816]

Mega,

Have to give it a little more thought, but these are a few of the things that jumped out….

"God welcomes and loves us all equally. Period." Nice sentiment, but I don't think it's
biblical. Not implying that God hates homosexuals, but have no idea why gay advocates keep promoting it as biblical either.

You'll usually find other sexual transgressions right there with the biblical admonishments of homosexuality as unacceptable behavior. Don't see anyone crying about the adulterers, fornicators, etc feelings being hurt by the "hate the sin/love the sinner" mantra. People aren't going out of their way these days to condemn the behavior, but I don't know anyone that claims it's OK from a religious standpoint either.

The argument is American-centric. It panders to our American sensibilities and what we think of social justice. I think there are plenty of places around the globe where a Christian would read this and be offended that this guy thinks things like slavery are a part of history.

 

[MegaPoke]

Don't see anyone crying about the adulterers, fornicators, etc feelings being hurt by the "hate the sin/love the sinner" mantra.

Well the obvious difference is that these things are completely behavioral regardless of orientation. Presumably a person could be either gay or straight by nature and yet successfully avoid the sins of fornication and adultery, but unless being gay actually is a choice, this is an apples to oranges comparison at best.

The crux of the argument to me anyway comes to this - The implication of homosexuality being a choice seems to imply that those holding the opinion that it IS a choice had to make a choice themselves to be straight and thus, are probably total closet gayballs.

So then, assuming it's not a choice, why would God give someone a homosexual nature and immediately set them up for failure if they follow their nature - even if they follow all the other rules (ie. fornicating and adultery)?

I mean at the very least, something about that doesn't pass the sniff test. The interesting thing to me is that most homosexual activities probably fall pretty clearly under the fornication part anyway, so why not focus on that? Well because damn near all of us have fornicated and so... well.. we can't come down too hard on that or we'll have to look in the mirror.

Also, nobody cries for the adulterers because statistically way more of us are guilty of that than we are of being gay, and it's a totally different stigma. An adulterer may be thought of as a guy with low character but otherwise, we rarely care (see Clinton, Bill) as long as otherwise he seems to not be actively f***ing things up. He may be a dirtbag, but he's a manly dirtbag.

We look at adultery as a personal failure that a man can choose to grow from. But homosexuality is simply seen as a distasteful weakness. And even those of us who can freely cast stones at adulterers ought to tap the brakes just a bit because not everyone is in a position where they are equally tempted in that regard. It's easy to say no when a person is in no danger of being propositioned, but I digress....

My takeaway from the article is that a pretty damned eloquent message can be crafted that at minimum, casts some of these "clobber" verses in a less than black and white light. And most important are the multiple admonishments in expanded New Testament texts to understand that we ALL sin and fall short. The point being (I think, as a Christian) is that we are incapable of redeeming ourselves, so judging someone else's sin while avoiding discussion of our own is pure hypocrisy.

 

[PDT816]

I think the blog is a complete mess. It's a series of drive-bys one after another.

Homosexuality becomes a sin at what point?

1. Simply being attracted to the same sex.
2. Fantasizing about the same sex (say masterbating, etc.)
3. Actually having sex with the same sex.
4. Having sex with the same sex outside of marriage.
5. It is never a sin.

He should have picked one and provided biblical interpretation. It's really not that hard. What does his bringing up the Inquisition or going on ad nauseam about how disappointed he is in Christians have to do with the conversation? Dragging other Christians into it is a losers argument and he's only doing it because he's got nothing else.

 

[squeak]

Seemed simple to me. Any sex outside of marriage, the act or thought, is a sin...hetero or homo.

I'm not judging though bc I'm not God.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[AC2014]

That's a question any thinking person has to ask Mega.

Briefly from a theological perspective, I would say that we are all born sinners with sinful inclinations. So doing what feels "natural" might not be the the right thing to do.

Doing the right thing biblically is hardly ever easy.

The good news is that there is grace and forgiveness available for sinners. This is good news because we're all pretty screwed up.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I'm about to drink hemlock. I agree with PDT.

I'm pretty liberal for Oklahoma, and I've discussed this issue with gay friends. Here's what I took away:

1. My gay san fran friends are "married".... sort of. THey aren't monogamous, in fact they're still wild as hell. For being so passionate about the right to get married they sure don't act married once they get it. I know that's not EVERYONE, but it's what I've noticed in my limited first hand observation. That observation is meaningless, but I had a "You fought for gay marriage and then you act like THIS?!" reaction.

2. I absolutely think people that are just against gay marriage are vindictive. It doesn't affect anyone else.

3. The "But the children -- what do I tell my children?" argument is classic republican bullshit. Tell them that people are gay. What do you say when kids ask awkward heterosexual questions?

4. I don't know this, but I'm suspcious of the author's greek scholarship. If he's right, those are some very interesting interpretations of the tough anti-gay scriptures. I've heard people come up with all kinds of bs regarding the original bibilical languages though -- it's not as if the regular joe on the street can double check the proper meaning of phrases from dead languages all that easily.

5. NOBODY wants a return to biblical-based marriage. If someone's divorced for reasons other than adultery, and remarries, they're living in adultery. Pretty black and white -- I think it's Jesus' words himself without much room for interpretation.

6. I also have never understood the significance of "they're born homosexual." What's the relevance of that? Since when is "natural" desire a defense to anything?

 

[Bitter Creek]

Originally posted by AC2014:
That's a question any thinking person has to ask Mega.

Briefly from a theological perspective, I would say that we are all born sinners with sinful inclinations. So doing what feels "natural" might not be the the right thing to do.

Doing the right thing biblically is hardly ever easy.

The good news is that there is grace and forgiveness available for sinners. This is good news because we're all pretty screwed up.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is correct, in my opinion.