Sunday, May 03, 2009

Homosexual marriage: I would like to know your thoughts

Sweden has become the latest country to legalise homosexual marriage. This makes seven countries in total that have extended marital rights to same sex couples. The more I think about this issue, the more I wonder why it manages to cause so much controversy.

I can understand why certain religious groups are against it, but I still struggle to understand why these groups would want to impose their own view of marriage on the rest of society. South Africa legalised homosexual marriage in December 2006, and there was much debate in the media while the Constitutional Court was working towards this decision. The most common dissenting argument I heard was that marriage is ordained by God in Genesis to be only between a man and a woman. I understand this argument, but it doesn't work because, as I argued in a previous blog post, society does not consist solely of Christians; there are many citizens who do not believe in, or abide by, the Bible, and thus we should not expect them to live by biblical teachings. This seems obvious; after all, as a Christian you are not expected to live by the commands of another religion, such as Islam, for example.

I would like to ask a question, directed towards those who are against the legalisation of same sex marriage. Why are you so concerned about this? I mean, by legalising homosexual marriage, nobody is stopping heterosexuals from marrying each other; in South Africa, heterosexual Christians can still marry when they like, who they like, and in the manner of their choosing. If two men (or two women) want the state to legally recognise their commitment to one other, how does this harm you in any way? I would like to understand more of your thinking around this issue.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

If there is a God, and He has determined that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, then we should expect consequences when that command is broken. Studies in the U.S., for example, have consistently demonstrated that the absence of either a mother or father in a home has a detrimental psychological impact on children, and has been linked to subsequent delinquent behavior and criminal activity. The preservation of marriage between man and woman is healthy for societies regardless of one's religious views.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous: You are speaking of single parenting situations which has nothing to do with the issue of homosexual marriage.

To respond to the question: I have deduced through discussions on this topic with various Christian friends that they have a fear of being forced to tolerate an "immoral" society from which they cannot escape. They beleive it "harms" them when society says homosexuality is legally okay, that it will lead to being morally okay, and that they will not be able to raise their children in their faith while society's laws are non-Christian. They beleive their children will most likely defy their family's beliefs.
Heaven forbid that their children could be homosexual just because it is legal, and that their children would be influenced and exposed to homosexuality on a larger level. If there is ONE thing that many of my Christian friends do not want their children to be is...gay.

I find that very sad.
~Dar

Anonymous said...

Dar said: "You are speaking of single parenting situations which has nothing to do with the issue of homosexual marriage."

Actually, the research I referenced (conducted by Mat Staver and others) focuses specifically on children raised by homosexual couples, not single parents. Interestingly enough, the one person I know personally who was raised by a homosexual couple fits that mold perfectly (perverse, deviant behavior landed him a 10-year prison sentence). The statistics indicate he is not a coincidental exception to the rule.

Anonymous said...

there are many citizens who do not believe in, or abide by, the Bible, and thus we should not expect them to live by biblical teachingsTrue, but as surveys have demonstrated, the majority of people in this country are opposed to homosexual marriage, whether or not they base their views on the Bible. A minority of gay activities imposed their values on the majority. There's a reason to be concerned.

If two men (or two women) want the state to legally recognise their commitment to one other, how does this harm you in any way?If you work from the pre-supposition that society is simply an aggregate of atomised individuals, then it does not. One could argue that if the government passes a law enabling some people to put other people into gas chambers, I should adopt the attitude "so what?" because no one is forcing me to be put people into gas chambers. Ethics doesn't work that way.

Anonymous said...

I do have to agree with the 1st anonymous person. Take religion out of the picture and look at 2 seperate genders with 2 seperate traits that only produce 2 seperate genders. The traits aren't just physical traits here women feel alot more than men...aka pms...and another way to look at it is the animal kingdom in general....say we are put here just to reproduce and raise babies then you need a man and a woman to do that. I mean I'm not a bible thumper or anything but if you look at this logically do not completley rule out the biblical text of marriage b/w a man and woman, just maybe the bible got it right. As far as homosexuality I think we all have our wants and desires and I do think wanting to be with the same gender is in that category.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "the one person I know personally who was raised by a homosexual couple fits that mold perfectly (perverse, deviant behavior landed him a 10-year prison sentence)"

So that makes it a 100% statistic for you, does it? Now think of all the perverse people you know that were raised by typical parents.

It is proven that children who are picked on, rejected, teased, and shunned - for reasons that their family is poor or they are different in some way (simply meaning non-typical or unpopular) in some way - have a much higher risk of becoming troubled adults. This obviously happens with heterosexual couples as well. The shunning comes from all walks of life, including Christians.

Now think about that one person you knew who was raised by homosexual parents, and imagine his life. Try to remember how you may have contributed to his downfall. Did you ever shun/tease him for having gay parents?

People - we are ALL responsible for ourselves and how we treat others who are different than ourselves. Think about all the restrictions you have placed upon people because they do not believe what you believe. Think about the prejudices you have applied to people who are different than you. Think about what it is like being unpopular and not having the same rights as your neighbor. You would be very angry my friend. You would fight to have what your neighbor has. You would fight to be able to live as freely as your neighbor. You would fight for the one you love and the lifestyle you want to live.

Remember, intolerance was also applied to black Americans less than a century ago. These human beings were not allowed to own land, vote, or even drink from the same fountain. Many black Americans to this day do not feel fully free. This sheer ignorance of restricting civil rights to the unpopular has cost this country greatly, and it is only being continued in a different form.

Let human beings have their civil freedoms. Everyone deserves to love, be loved, and legalize their consentual union if they so choose.
Who are you to speak for your God?
~Dar

Kevin Parry said...

Thank you for all your comments.I would like to respond to a few of the points:

Actually, the research I referenced (conducted by Mat Staver and others) focuses specifically on children raised by homosexual couples, not single parents.How many homosexual couples in the USA are actually raising children? I ask this question because any study on this topic (both those that find results in support for homosexual marriage and those that don't) are probably compromised by small samples.

Anyway, the USA (as well as South Africa) is plagued by divorce and broken marriages. The largest proportion of these (if not all) are heterosexual marriages. So one can argue that heterosexual marriages are in fact causing the greatest harm to society; but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on heterosexual marriage.

True, but as surveys have demonstrated, the majority of people in this country are opposed to homosexual marriage, whether or not they base their views on the Bible. A minority of gay activities imposed their values on the majority.Just because the majority thinks that something is wrong (or right), doesn't mean that it is. One of the pillars of democracy is the protection of minority rights. If 90% of the country opposed Christianity and called for a ban all Christian worship, how would you feel?

Luckily the constitution protects your right to worship, even if you were in the minority and everyone disagreed with your belief. But I still don't see what you mean by 'impose' – if two homosexuals marry, how does that change your own way of life? They are not stopping you from practicing or following your onw beliefs.

One could argue that if the government passes a law enabling some people to put other people into gas chambers, I should adopt the attitude "so what?" because no one is forcing me to be put people into gas chambers.But placing people in gas chambers is harming them. How does two people of the same sex exchanging vows harm you?

Anonymous said...

In response to Dar's question, "So that makes it a 100% statistic for you, does it?" No, a single incident should not been seen as a representative sample. My point is that the incident of which I was aware was not a statistical outlier; it was the norm rather than the exception.

I agree that other factors (such as childhood teasing, etc.) may have contributed to the behavior in such an individual's life, but that would be a different research study (i.e., studying the correlation between childhood bullying and subequent criminal activity). Staver's reseach actually does a good job of considering other such factors, but the fact is that the correlation between homosexual parents and deviant children is undeniable. In fact, another common feature among professing homosexuals is the absence or abuse of a father in their childhood. What we are seeing is that harmful or irresponsible behavior both leads to or proceeds from homosexual practices.

Anonymous said...

Addressing this: "In fact, another common feature among professing homosexuals is the absence or abuse of a father in their childhood."

How about polling all of the people who were raised without fathers and/or have been abused by fathers who are NOT homosexual? The statistics on this so-called common link is completely biased and incomplete. Coupled with possible societal and/or familial factors, there is also evidence of genetic difference.

Also addressing: "What we are seeing is that harmful or irresponsible behavior both leads to or proceeds from homosexual practices."

Not all deviants are homosexual, and not all homosexuals are deviants. That was a highly prejudiced and ignorant statement.

Still...how does it affect you and your life? Where is homosexual marriage harming YOU?
~Dar

Anonymous said...

"Not all deviants are homosexual, and not all homosexuals are deviants. That was a highly prejudiced and ignorant statement."

No, it is a statistically significant correlation. It would be "ignorant" to ignore it.


"Where is homosexual marriage harming YOU?"

Since homosexual lifestyles have been linked to the aforementioned deviant behaviors, the resultant behaviors pose potential harm to everyone.

Lorena said...

Just curious as to why all these against-same-sex-marriage posters MUST be anonymous. How hard is it to create a nickname?

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

Thanks for bringing up a very important and relevant topic. Most of the above comments address the secular ramifications of same-sex unions, and depending on how accurate they are, they could be an important thing to consider. As a Christian, I certainly understand how one could argue that legalizing same-sex marriage isn't directly my problem. I consider homosexual practices (not homosexual temptations) a sin, but I feel the same about other issues which are already legal (such as pornography and premarital sex). Just because something is legally sanctioned does not mean I have to subject myself to it. I can't expect a secular government to legislate Christian morality, so on one hand, perhaps I shouldn't devote all my energy into opposing the legalization of moral issues like same-sex marriage (though I certainly wouldn't be compelled to vote in favor of it either).

On the other hand, I believe the legalization of same-sex marriage can take a nation down a path that will have a direct negative impact on religious freedoms. For example, in the U.S. a movement is being made to criminalize the verbal denounciation of homosexual lifestyles (calling it "hate speech"). The results of this legislation could limit my freedom to verbally agree with the biblical position that homosexuality is a sin. In effect, this would turn the government into the thought police, giving them the authority to punish someone for merely holding an opinion. It would also prohibit Christian pastors from being able to legally preach the full counsel of God's word, thereby affecting their freedom to worship. I'm also aware of at least one American church which was sued for "discriminatory practices" because the pastor refused to marry a same-sex couple (I'm not sure who won that lawsuit). To compel a pastor under litigation to conduct a marriage which violates his conscience (and the Bible upon which his occupation is founded) seems ruthlessly dictatorial, and certainly does not preserve one's freedom to worship.

While instances such as these may not be an inescapable result of legalizing same-sex marriage, it certainly opens dangerous doors for Christians. I can easily see why the church would not be excited about the legalization of homosexual unions. The church will not remain unaffected by it. For many atheists, I'm sure that sounds like a good thing. For me, it's frightening, but I should not expect any different (2 Tim. 3:12)

phil

desiderius said...

Just because the majority thinks that something is wrong (or right), doesn't mean that it is. So now you have changed your argument in favour of homosexual marriage from the Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on the many [sic] people who do not believe in the Bible to saying that there are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply despite what the minority or majority believes. On what basis do these absolute standards rest and who determines what they are?

Luckily the constitution protects your right to worship, even if you were in the minority and everyone disagreed with your belief. The constitution may give me the right to sing songs or conduct rituals on a Sunday morning; it does not give me the right to practise my Christian beliefs.

How does two people of the same sex exchanging vows harm you? Well, obviously there is no direct physical threat to my person. However, apart from the consequences outlined by Phil, I will be have to live in a society that further trivialises an institution designed to foster healthy human relations and society stability.

CyberKitten said...

phil said: Just because something is legally sanctioned does not mean I have to subject myself to it.

Then don't.

phil said: For example, in the U.S. a movement is being made to criminalize the verbal denounciation of homosexual lifestyles (calling it "hate speech"). The results of this legislation could limit my freedom to verbally agree with the biblical position that homosexuality is a sin.

So... Hate speech is Ok as long as it's *religious* Hate speech or Hate speech with a religious foundation?

I have no great issue with priests deciding not to marry same sex couples. I do have an issue with the law preventing them getting married anywhere by anyone. The idea that only certain (approved) types of consenting adults are allowed to marry is just bizarre from my PoV.

Anonymous said...

To answer Cyberkitten's question about hate speech, I don't think that merely expressing the opinion that a certain behavior is immoral should qualify as hate speech. We have the freedom to disagree about all sorts of other moral issues, such as gambling, profanity, pornography, and certain other sexual activities. I should have the freedom to express my view (in a non-violent manner) about homosexual behavior without fear of government reprisal. We should not classify the opinions of anyone who disagrees with us as "hate speech"-- it sets a dangerous precedent for limiting fundamental freedoms of expression. I could just as easily assert that calling Christians "intolerant" is hate speech. I don't believe we should engage in such a subjective practice. Calling me "intolerant" is merely an opinion, and it is one that you should have the freedom to express, just as I should have the freedom to disagree and state my views.

Please note that I am not condoning the use of violent behavior or even malicious name-calling when it comes to homosexuals (some Christians have sullied their name by these practices-- this is not what the Bible teaches). I simply believe that we should have the freedom to publicly disagree about which behaviors in a society are moral and healthy.

phil

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that any Christians will be losing freedoms. You can still disagree with homosexual marriage and you can shout it from your steeples. However, the rest of society may eventually frown upon you for doing so...as it is becoming more and more popular to be tolerant and acceptant, rather than rigid and unforgiving. It is becoming more acceptable to coexist peacefully than to try to convert people to your beliefs.

Is that where the fear mostly lies? That you, as a Christian, are becoming an unpopular minority?
~Dar

CyberKitten said...

phil said: I don't think that merely expressing the opinion that a certain behavior is immoral should qualify as hate speech.

...and, AFAIK, expressing such opinions isn't hate speech.

phil said: We should not classify the opinions of anyone who disagrees with us as "hate speech"-- it sets a dangerous precedent for limiting fundamental freedoms of expression.

The classification of Hate Speech would be a legal one - which will probaby vary from State to State/Country to Country. Deciding on whether or not a particular utterence was Hate Speech or not would be for a court to decide - if it gets that far. Disagreeing with something is not hate speech. Saying that you are wrong is not hate speech - even calling someone an idiot or immoral is not hate speech. Saying that someone will burn in Hell for their (perfectly legal) activities and should be assisted on their way by all right thinking people... *that's* probably hate speech!

Anonymous said...

Dar, you said, "I don't agree that any Christians will be losing freedoms. You can still disagree with homosexual marriage and you can shout it from your steeples."

This is simply not true, as what we are witnessing in various countries is the governmental suppression of free speech in this very area. For example, the attached link describes what is going on in Canada, and the U.S. is quickly moving in the same direction with legislation such as bill H.R. 1913.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34671

Cyberkitten, you said, "Saying that someone will burn in Hell for their (perfectly legal) activities" should qualify as hate speech.

First of all, I do not believe that homosexuality is an unpardonable sin, and I would be a hypocrite to say that I am any less of a sinner than one who practices homosexuality. The difference is that I believe that faith in Christ will rescue me from the just penalty of my sins and shortcomings, whatever they might be. That is the message I believe Christians should be sharing with the world. I believe God will deal with the specific sins in one's life (whether it be homosexuality or anything else) and help people to repent as a byproduct of drawing near to the Lord in faith. If I sincerely believe that telling someone to turn from their sin and trust the Lord will save them from eternal torment, I would call that "love speech" rather than "hate speech," because whether that person agrees with me or not, I am showing concern for the destiny of their soul. From a Christian's viewpoint, failing to share the truth of the Bible would be like discovering the cure for cancer and refusing to share it with anyone because they'll have a hard time believing you. Again, some so-called "Christians" have taken the hypocritical approach of condemning homosexuals without bothering to lovinging show them how to find freedom from the penalty of their sins. I don't believe that is a biblical approach, and I certainly understand why many of those "Christians" are being seen as hateful.

phil

CyberKitten said...

phil quoted: Cyberkitten, you said, "Saying that someone will burn in Hell for their (perfectly legal) activities" should qualify as hate speech.

When actually i said: *that's* "probably" hate speech!

What actually constitutes Hate Speech *in law* would depend on the courts and not opinion - either yours or mine.

phil said: I don't believe that is a biblical approach, and I certainly understand why many of those "Christians" are being seen as hateful.

Probably because they are *being* hateful..... which I've always found a bit strange coming from a supposedly loving religion.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your last point, Cyberkitten. Those people do not accurately reflect a faith for which love is a central doctrine.

phil

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard any Christians bring up the sin of pre-marital (heterosexual) sex.

Where is the focus on love, partnerships and responsibilities of consentual sex in general?

Heteros have taken the sanctity of marriage for granted and pre-marital sex has become a very acceptable "norm"...in some cases, it is even a requirement! (test driving the car before you buy)

I personally would like to see a decrease in permiscuity altogether, and take a good look at whether or not marriage itself is a problem before denying a homosexual the right to choose.

~Dar

Kevin Parry said...

So now you have changed your argument in favour of homosexual marriage from the Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on the many [sic] people who do not believe in the BibleWhat I’m trying to say is that majority opinion on its own should not be used as a basis for making decisions on the well-being of minority groups. This is because in any society, minority groups tend to become marginalized by the majority.

Phil wroteOn the other hand, I believe the legalization of same-sex marriage can take a nation down a path that will have a direct negative impact on religious freedoms.Thanks Phil for your thoughtful reply. I’ve read about the intense debates taking place in the USA (not only on homosexuality), and all debates seem to be extremely polarized, with both sides getting pretty aggressive (at least, that’s what I observe). So could it be that the tension between secularism and the church’s issues with free speech are consequence of the culture of polarization, not of a specific issue?

And it might be the case that a number of the activists for homosexuality are aggressive in their approach, but I don’t think this reflects on homosexuality at all. I mean, every movement in history (from environmentalism to the civil rights movement) has had its share of activists pushing the boundaries. So you can’t label homosexuality as the problem for this. Maybe the problems you have lies with the polarized culture in the USA, and maybe with a few activists.

Cori and I once knew a gay couple who had lived together for a number of years. They were great guys, not wanting to force their views on others. All they wanted was to share the same benefits of legal commitment that Cori and I have. I don’t see how the realization of this has harmed our society. In fact, I believe that by allowing homosexual marriage, our society has been enhanced, because it has become more inclusive.

desiderius said...

What I’m trying to say is that majority opinion on its own should not be used as a basis for making decisions on the well-being of minority groups. This is because in any society, minority groups tend to become marginalized by the majority So then you agree with the Freedom Front and others that whites in SA should be granted certain group rights to protect their language and culture so that they don't become "marginalised"? Incidentally, I notice that you have not answered my question On what basis do these absolute standards rest and who determines what they are?And it might be the case that a number of the activists for homosexuality are aggressive in their approach, but I don’t think this reflects on homosexuality at all. The non sequitur of the approach of political activitists "reflecting" on homosexuality aside, I suggest you do more research. You will discover that gay activitists are not prepared to tolerate those who disagree with homosexuality. The Obama administration intends to introduce legislation to make it a crime to oppose the homosexual agenda. In Canada, Britain and Sweden, people have been fined/jailed for daring to disagree with homosexuality.

In fact, I believe that by allowing homosexual marriage, our society has been enhanced, because it has become more inclusive. Considering the way in which "marriage" has already been debased (fornication, living together, pornography, easy divorce), you probably have a point. Since "progressives" are already campaigning to allow people to "celebrate" their unions with animals or to marry their brothers and sisters, one can safely conclude that marriage, as a non-Christian institution, has been trashed already.

Kevin Parry said...

So then you agree with the Freedom Front and others that whites in SA should be granted certain group rights to protect their language and culture so that they don't become "marginalised"?Yes, as long as the granting of those rights does not cause a threat to the rights of others. If Afrikaaners want to celebrate their culture through music and literature, then they should be free to do so. But if they want to create their own ‘nation’ by excluding others, then they can’t, as they will be putting at risk the general freedom of association.

On what basis do these absolute standards rest and who determines what they are.Could I be brave enough to answer with one word: “consequences”? As I’ve argued, majority opinion on its own is not a good way to determine what is healthy, and what is not healthy, for society. I mean, a majority of whites during apartheid agreed with racial legislation, but we know how unhealthy this was for our country. I think a better method is by measuring actions or policies by its consequences. What are the negative or positive consequences for individuals, groups of people, the economy or the environment? I think you would agree with this, as both you and Phil have argued that the legislation of homosexual marriage has dire consequences for society. And this is why I appreciate your earlier argument where you wrote that my original post only considered consequences for individuals, and did not consider society in general. This is where I think we have made progress in our discussion, because I assumed, when I wrote the blog post, that Christians were only concerned for their own personal well-being regarding this issue. Now I see, after reading all the comments, that the concern is more general. So thank you making me realise this.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but from the discussion I’ve realised that Christians have two broad concerns (related to society) about homosexual marriage: (1) that homosexual marriage results in infringements on freedom of speech, and (2) it is destructive to the institution of marriage.

For point one, we should all be concerned if any body is severely curtailing freedom of speech in a democratic society, but I think your argument makes the mistake of blaming homosexuality for this problem, where I think we should lay the blame on aggressive gay activists. In other words, the act of homosexuality by its very nature does not automatically, and in all circumstances, lead to a threat to freedom of speech. I agree with homosexual marriage, but I am also concerned about what some of the gay activists are doing. The two issues are separate from each other.

On point two, I think we have different definitions of marriage. I would imagine you would define marriage as a legal and loving commitment between a man and a woman. But I would define marriage as a legal and loving commitment between *two people*. How does the gender aspect make any difference? If two people enter into a legal, loving commitment, irrespective of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, how does this cause harm to the institution of marriage or to society? Aside from the freedom of speech argument, are there any direct, negative consequences this would have? I would argue that it strengthens the institution, as it enables more couples to take an active role in the institution itself.

Apologies for this long comment – being concise is not one of my gifts :-)

12:05 PM

desiderius said...

I don't have a problem with long responses.

I am not going to belabour the point about minority rights, as it's taking us off point. Suffice to say that your point about "threatening others' rights" and "exclusion" is not as clear-cut as it seems. In order for rights to have meaning, they require some kind of substantive content, hence the dispute over the use of Afrikaans in schools and universities. If one guarantees a group the right to be taught in their language, one is by definition excluding those who do not.

Providing a Christian response that will satisfy your definition of what constitutes "healthy consequences" and "harm" is difficult because, according to my reading of your presuppositions (as outlined in your blog entries), you are only prepared to accept those that fall within a naturalistic paradigm. Thus I believe you would consider irrelevant those consequences that have to do with a society and an individual's relationship with a Creator God. This takes us back to fundamental presuppositions about reality and highlights why Christians and non-Christians cannot agree over homosexual marriage.

However, on a purely naturalistic level, I believe there is substantial evidence to question the assumption that homosexual activity is physiologically or psychologically healthy. Therefore, it should not be encouraged. However, that is taking us outside the parameters of your original question.

You are entirely correct when you state that Christians and non-Christians are working with totally different definitions about marriage. I would go further and say that the fault-line runs between secularists and any person with a theistic/religious worldview. After all, marriage is not a Christian institution per se, as the evidence from different cultures shows. In Christian terms, marriage is a "creation ordinance" that arises from the fact that people are either male or female. Thus homosexual marriage is an attempt to overturn that order. And if you want to discuss consequences, a tour through history will show you the consequences for societies in which the state has, in its hubris, attempted to set itself up over God.

Kevin Parry said...

Hi desiderius

Providing a Christian response that will satisfy your definition of what constitutes "healthy consequences" and "harm" is difficult because, according to my reading of your presuppositions (as outlined in your blog entries), you are only prepared to accept those that fall within a naturalistic paradigm.But when it comes to homosexual marriage, I'm not forming my opinions on a naturalistic paradigm, but on the paradigm that modern society can only be reasonably successful if it manages to keep some separation between state and religion. Allowing homosexual marriage is a state issue, not a religious one. After all, by allowing homosexual marriage, the state is not infringing on your rights as a Christian to marry who you like, and in the manner of your choosing. It has a task, over and above religion (and in the best interests of society at large) to extend rights to those who do not currently enjoy them. And this includes homosexuals. If legalization of homosexual marriage does not adversely affect society (i.e., if there are no good secular arguments against it) and if the only arguments against it are religious, then there is no basis to withhold these rights from homosexuals.

And anyway, when you appeal to man’s relationship with the ‘Creator’, whose creator are you referring to? There are many religions who profess to know the absolute truth of the ‘Creator’, but these have differing views on what is moral. If religion was used as a yard-stick, we would be left with the question: which religion?

Thanks again for your reply. I’ve really enjoyed the discussion, and have learnt a thing or two.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, you stated, "I agree with homosexual marriage, but I am also concerned about what some of the gay activists are doing. The two issues are separate from each other."

I agree that they are two separate issues: technically, one doesn't have to lead to the other. But they are also two deeply connected issues (in my country, they appear inseparable). Therefore, I stand by my previous comment that Christians should be concerned about the advancement and acceptance of homosexuality in societys. It will lead to infringement on their rights.

phil

Laughing Boy said...

Why do I care if homosexuals are allowed to marry? 3 reasons. The first two are reasons a secular society should oppose it and the third is a reason why some members of a society should oppose it.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural. The male and female bodies are symbiotic. Whether you believe in creation or unguided evolution it's plain that the natural function of male and female bodies, in the context of physical union (marriage), is procreation. Why should we create laws that sanction the joining of two bodies that where never intended to be joined? In other words, why should we have civil laws that run counter to natural laws?

2. Homosexuality is dangerous. The average homosexual male lives 45 years. That's after factoring out AIDS-related deaths! Include AIDs-related deaths and the average age falls to under 35. The state should be interested in discouraging behavior that cuts 30-40 years off the life span of it's male population.

3. Homosexuality is a sin. For some reason this statement gets people all worked up, and ironically, those who are the most offended don't believe in God or Christian scripture and shouldn't care one way or another if their actions are called sinful by people they think are hypocritical, superstitious idiots. But for those who claim hold to Christian doctrine, as I do, the fact that it is a sin is (or should be) reason enough not to want it sanctioned.

Finally, as it regards the debate as it is currently framed in most (all?) of the media reports I've seen, is the fact that the current status quo is not discriminatory against gays and therefore I don't see what legal ground exists for their complaint. Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry (and many gays are married). Men are forbidden from marrying men and women are forbidden from marrying women. This applies equally to all. There are many restrictions on marriage in most western societies including those regarding close family members, multiple spouses, age (and species) restrictions, etc. Should the incestuous, the polygamists, and the pedophiles, join Pete Seeger in the streets to demand "equal rights"?

Denise said...

Anonymous 1's claim that research says children raised by gay parents are harmed is crazy. Research says quite the opposite. It says that children raised by 2 parents do quite well. Children raised by gay parents do as well as children raised by straight parents. The key seems to be having 2 parents doing the raising.