• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

I have an honest question for discussion for Wrangor - is it my understanding that only a true love as you have described be one that is deserving the sanctity of marriage? If so, are you then saying that I as a gay man am incapable of true love since I do not have romantic and physical attractions to females?
 
Wrangor said:
I think that my above comments are the way to go, but I will make the prediction that marriage will continue to get more convoluted and not less. Polygamy is right around the corner using this line of thinking, but to be honest I don't see a way around it. I mean what is so different about polygamy and gay marriage? Consenting adults who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. No genetic harm like you could argue against with incest. No more risk of sexual coercion than a marriage between 2 adults. I am not using this as an argument against gay marriage, I am just predicting that it will be next in line. If you use the logic that the government should not be able to get in the way of consenting adults wanting to be married, then there is really no argument against polygamy.
Click to expand...

If there are no issues of coercion, underage women etc involved, then you can make an argument that polygamy is next around the corner, but there's still a ways to go legally before you get there. Courts would either need to find they are a group worthy of applying higher levels of protection for (and there's no indication that the court is willing to do this), or you would need to see a wider trend of states legalizing that form of marriage.

People bring up all of these hypotheticals regarding incest, polygamy etc, and setting aside all of the other arguments, just from a legal perspective it is distinct. Courts apply heightened standards of review in regards to legislation impacting homosexual couples. They do not with these other classifications. Until they start doing so, none of the hypotheticals are really that relevant because legally the groups are treated differently. You can make all of the moral arguments that you'd like, but legally I think we're far away from saying states can't prevent polygamy.
 
Wrangor said:
I think that my above comments are the way to go, but I will make the prediction that marriage will continue to get more convoluted and not less. Polygamy is right around the corner using this line of thinking, but to be honest I don't see a way around it. I mean what is so different about polygamy and gay marriage? Consenting adults who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. No genetic harm like you could argue against with incest. No more risk of sexual coercion than a marriage between 2 adults. I am not using this as an argument against gay marriage, I am just predicting that it will be next in line. If you use the logic that the government should not be able to get in the way of consenting adults wanting to be married, then there is really no argument against polygamy.
Click to expand...

I think there are two very important distinctions between polygamy and gay marriage.

First off, no one is born polygamous. There is no biological basis for polygamy. The reality that homosexuality is biologically based and thus out of the control of the individual is, as I have posted earlier in this thread, what gives rise to society's realization that homosexuals should not be the subject of discrimination.

Second, while in theory maybe three or four or more people could get together and decide to all be harmoniously married without any kind of coercion, in reality, experience shows this just doesn't happen very often. Human beings are not wired to share their sexual partners very easily. What we generally see is that polygamy is associated with religious or social institutions that treat women as property and certainly not as fully equal members of the religion or society. Again and again the pattern of arranged marriages and sexual coercion, and even child abuse, occurs - see, e.g., Warren Jeffs. Two adult homosexuals voluntarily committing to spend their lives together has no history of coercion or oppression, in fact just the opposite - thousands if not millions of these couples desperately want to be in these relationships and have them recognized by the state.

For these two reasons, society has determined that because (a) polygamists are not a class entitled to any special protection, and (b) hundreds of years of history and millions of years of evolution show that polygamous relationships are very often a tool of oppressive and victimizing males, polygamy should be outlawed or at the least, not rewarded with state-sponsored benefits.
 
DieHardDeacon said:
I have an honest question for discussion for Wrangor - is it my understanding that only a true love as you have described be one that is deserving the sanctity of marriage? If so, are you then saying that I as a gay man am incapable of true love since I do not have romantic and physical attractions to females?
Click to expand...

You aren't going to like my answer...there is really no reason to get into that. This is one of these things where we just need to agree to disagree. As a Christian I believe in sin...the reality of right and wrong. I believe you are wrong to act as you do, just as I believe it is wrong for people to act on innate desires for greed, gluttony, lust, etc.... Just because I innately long to acquire as much money as I can for my own security doesn't make that right.

In all seriousness we disagree (clearly). I don't hate you anymore than I hate myself for being full of sin. The difference is I don't try to justify my own sins. And I don't condemn sin because I am better, I aim to avoid sin in my life because it saddens the one who made me, saved me, and one day waits for me in eternity. Avoiding sin doesn't get me to Jesus, I aim to avoid sin because that pleases Him. Wacko I know...but that is what I believe. Take it for what it is worth. I would gladly share a beer with anyone: gay, straight, polygamous, adulterer, sadist, Baptist :)... and I really only seek to call out those who are pursuing Christ...simply because I would want them to do the same for me. Hopefully that makes sense...trying to explain without sounding condescending. To disagree without judging is a difficult tightrope.
 
I have an honest question Wrangor, not out of a desire to be antagonist, but because you seem reasonable and I'd like to get your opinion on this: where do you see faith and government intersecting? Meaning, there are statistical studies which indicate that teaching abstinence only leads to a higher % of pregnancies (and I'm guessing as a corollary a higher rate of STDs). Would you sanction something which I assume is counter to your theological disposition (teaching kids about birth control and the like in regards to pre-marital sex) because of its very obvious practical benefits of reducing disease and teen pregnancy, or would you hold the position that by doing so you're sort of sanctioning sin?

I have a few friends who are devoutly Christian socially and have asked them about these types of things before. I feel like you can be true to your faith while also realizing simultaneously society's need to exist in a practical world (as in you wouldn't need to condone these things, or gay marriage etc if it is against what you believe, but still recognize realistically the need for society to take pragmatic approaches to issues). Just curious to get your thoughts on this.
 
I don't believe man is meant to be monogamous naturally. I have no issue with polygamy if people want to enter into it without being coerced or taken advantage of.
 
Wrangor said:
You aren't going to like my answer...there is really no reason to get into that. This is one of these things where we just need to agree to disagree. As a Christian I believe in sin...the reality of right and wrong. I believe you are wrong to act as you do, just as I believe it is wrong for people to act on innate desires for greed, gluttony, lust, etc.... Just because I innately long to acquire as much money as I can for my own security doesn't make that right.

In all seriousness we disagree (clearly). I don't hate you anymore than I hate myself for being full of sin. The difference is I don't try to justify my own sins. And I don't condemn sin because I am better, I aim to avoid sin in my life because it saddens the one who made me, saved me, and one day waits for me in eternity. Avoiding sin doesn't get me to Jesus, I aim to avoid sin because that pleases Him. Wacko I know...but that is what I believe. Take it for what it is worth. I would gladly share a beer with anyone: gay, straight, polygamous, adulterer, sadist, Baptist :)... and I really only seek to call out those who are pursuing Christ...simply because I would want them to do the same for me. Hopefully that makes sense...trying to explain without sounding condescending. To disagree without judging is a difficult tightrope.
Click to expand...

I am frustrated by my inability to put words to my reaction to this post. Plainly put, I disagree from a Christian standpoint. However, I will say I'm flabbergasted that you would/could think someone is incapable of love because of their sexual preference.
 
The fact that we've gotten to the point of discussing homosexuality as a sin is exactly the problem. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone...but if you walk into a polling place and punch "yes" on amendment one because you consider it a sin, then you have missed the point entirely.
 
for the record, i've given up on the amendment 1 dialogue and just joined the conversation at hand... though they're somewhat tangential, i (personally) don't see much relevance to what we're talking about now and amendment 1 in terms of people's votes.
 
lbE08 said:
I am frustrated by my inability to put words to my reaction to this post. Plainly put, I disagree from a Christian standpoint. However, I will say I'm flabbergasted that you would/could think someone is incapable of love because of their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I'm not offended as everyone is entitled to an opinion. I've fought this battle for 20+ years and have heard it all. I do believe that Wrangor is well intentioned person with a very good heart that has been woefully misinformed on a vast array of biblical passages (as most people are). Reviewing original text in language and cultural behaviors sheds a lot of light onto a lot of biblical passages. The same feeling he/she has toward me is the equivalent of what I feel for him/her for lacking understanding when I can see that they are essentially a good person. If you recall the movie "Color Purple", i equate these people with the sheriff's wife. I am a practicing Christian (attend Wake Forest Baptist Church) and try to see many different view points. Years ago, I went through RCIA to develop my deeper understanding of Catholicism and I grew up in a Biblical Litteralist environment so I am pretty well versed in passages.
The one thing I would say to Wagoner that would be helpful in understanding is that being gay isn't about sex. Even if I abstained from sexual activity and therefore not committ the sins he equates being gay with, I'm still gay in the same way he/she is still straight without being sexually active.
Sorry but I had to respond to this and hope it doesn't derail the thread too much. Also, I hope that I have been able to put this in a constructive and informative fashion without being rude.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't believe man is meant to be monogamous naturally. I have no issue with polygamy if people want to enter into it without being coerced or taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

You're a little different, aren't you?
 
lbE08 said:
I am frustrated by my inability to put words to my reaction to this post. Plainly put, I disagree from a Christian standpoint. However, I will say I'm flabbergasted that you would/could think someone is incapable of love because of their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I never said incapable of love...that would be a ridiculous notion. That would be like saying a workaholic had no work ethic. Or a man who wants to provide for his family who forsakes the needs of the community around them. The Bible talks all the time about sins that begin grounded in truth. Sorry to to not make that clear. No doubt in my mind that homosexuals can love and love deeply.
 
Deadbolt said:
The fact that we've gotten to the point of discussing homosexuality as a sin is exactly the problem. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone...but if you walk into a polling place and punch "yes" on amendment one because you consider it a sin, then you have missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Agree with this I think...still trying to figure how to fit my core beliefs into a political structure. They really don't fit into either political party.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
I have an honest question Wrangor, not out of a desire to be antagonist, but because you seem reasonable and I'd like to get your opinion on this: where do you see faith and government intersecting? Meaning, there are statistical studies which indicate that teaching abstinence only leads to a higher % of pregnancies (and I'm guessing as a corollary a higher rate of STDs). Would you sanction something which I assume is counter to your theological disposition (teaching kids about birth control and the like in regards to pre-marital sex) because of its very obvious practical benefits of reducing disease and teen pregnancy, or would you hold the position that by doing so you're sort of sanctioning sin?

I have a few friends who are devoutly Christian socially and have asked them about these types of things before. I feel like you can be true to your faith while also realizing simultaneously society's need to exist in a practical world (as in you wouldn't need to condone these things, or gay marriage etc if it is against what you believe, but still recognize realistically the need for society to take pragmatic approaches to issues). Just curious to get your thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

I was just having this conversation with my wife. This is difficult because the structure of our government says that they should not intersect, yet in practical application they intersect all the time. In my opinion, Christianity would be better off in a world where the government and religion does not intersect. This is difficult, because we do need our government in some ways to govern morality, but when specifically discussing marriage I think I am at a point where I would suggest the following policy if I were in Washington.

1. Government's job is to recognize civil unions between 2 people of legal age (no incest...sorry Mississippians)
2. Government has no say over marriage whatsoever. If you go to the courthouse you get a certificate of civil union not a marriage license
3. Churches control the right of marriage. This would give leave for a denomination to marry homosexuals. So in essence I would be allowing gay marriage to exist with this proposal even though I firmly believe that Gay marriage is an afront on a holy God.

Here is my reason. Society is trending towards gay marriage anyway. If we don't separate the government's role in this issue then pretty soon the government is going to force gay marriage across the board. If the government forces gay marriage across the board then I see a very easy scenario where a reformed/conservative church could have their non-profit status, or be liable for not performing a gay marriage. This is not a scenario that anyone wants to find themselves in I would think.

By taking the government out, and putting the control in the hands of the churches then the responsibility falls on the church to make the wise decision. This would lead to rampant gay marriage I know, but I think that is coming down the tracks anyway. In this scenario my church/denomination would retain our rights to abide by our religious freedoms without infringement from the government.

The difficult part about this government/faith intersection is that government by definition is to uphold moral law. Don't steal, don't kill, etc.... So there will always be a blurred line if the government is doing its job. The problem with gay marriage is that public opinion is beginning to swing pretty heavily against my opinion, so unless conservatives are smart about how they handle this issue we will not only be defeated on the issue, but annihilated in the battle. That answer your question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top