Homosexuality & the definition of marriage

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NateT, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. NateT

    NateT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was watching a clip on the internet of a conversation on gay marriage.
    There was a Catholic man who was holding to the Catholic position, and what appeared to be an agnostic who was holding to the side of allowing gays to be married.

    I'm against gay marriage, I think marriage as defined between man and woman, but what I'm wondering is, how strong is the "defintion debate" on the topic?

    It seems like everytime I hear someone who is against gay marriage try to define marriage, it seems to always be something that a gay couple could say they hold to, like "A marriage is a relationship in which the members meet each others needs."

    Perhaps the problem is lack of a good definition of marriage, but it seems like when gay marriage is debated on civil grounds (and not moral) the pro-gay side should win by a landslide everytime.

    Just expressing some frustration, that evangelicals are allowing the debate to be dictated to them.
     
  2. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://theamericanview.com/index.php?id=640


    CHeck this out.
    The problem is the fact that too many "Christians" are trying to argue without using God and the Bible in their arguments.

    Of course the humanists will win every time like that!

    You are right, it is frustrating.
     
  3. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    The US law is for everyone, not just Christians.
     
  4. JFox1

    JFox1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm against gay marriage, I think marriage as defined between man and woman


    Does that mean I can't marry a dolphin, like the woman in Israel did? Aw, shucks! :tongue3:
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I would like to see a strict separation of marriage and state. The states didn't even get involved in marriage until the 19th century and that was to outlaw interracial marriage.

    2. Short of number 1 occurring, perhaps a viable political idea would be to separate the civil aspects of marriage from the divine aspects of marriage. If the state is going to keep its nose in the matter, then maybe it should recognize civil "unions" for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Then the churches can continue to hold wedding ceremonies for "marriages" as they see fit based on their beliefs.
     
  6. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    That's how it was in the communist Soviet Union. So who says separation of church and state-- written just that way [in Russian] into their constitution-- does't have ties with or the effects of communism?
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The separation of church and state, the separation of education and state, the separation of marriage and state are all excellent ideas. The less that the state is meddling in our lives the better.
     
  8. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    While that is mostly true, sodomy is a crime.
    Part of the problem is that it has even gotten to the point of marriage.
    I agree that the state should stay out of marriage.
    Marriage is a divine institution and as such the state has no business to define what it is because God already has.

    THe states only business is to prosecute criminals and protect the rights of its citizens.
    If the state was protecting the rights of its law abiding citizens by executing sodomites, then we wouldn't have to worry about them butting into marriage.
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Au contrare!
    In 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned the Texas sodomy laws, stating that private, consensual sexual behavior is not the governments business. The ruling also struck down such laws in every state that still had them. I wholeheartedly agree. Uncle Sam has no need to be peeking into anyone's bedroom.



    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
     

Share This Page

Loading...