The Issue of Marriage

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
#1
I would like to ask some advice here.

I'm writing an article to the local Newspaper on gay marriage - currently my arguments runs.

The arguments that justify Gay marriage justify polygamist marriage.

It is bad for children.

What are your thoughts? I will be arguing mainly from a secular position. Do remember that Australia is more secular than America.

Regards,

Stuart
 
K

kenthomas27

Guest
#2
From a U.S. perspective, the debate over gay marriages and their right to do so have been focused on their civil rights as citizens, but I think their very debate is erroneous because marriage is not a universal right. It's closely regulated here. In many states you can't marry family relatives and in all states only one spouse is recognized and is, as a matter of fact, unlawful to have more than one spouse. Some states even deny marriage to people with STD's, so it's not like gays or lesbians are the only ones who are denied of marrying somebody of their choosing. Now, I'm not really comparing gays to any of these groups, but rather pointing out the tight regulations on marriage because they are made into law for good reason. The state has a vested interest in a marriage between a man and a woman because such marriages will propagate the state.

When the state grants marriage, they're entering into a costly venture. In the U.S., the spouse of the deceased social security recipient will continue to receive their benefit for instance. Married couples can get certain tax benefits. Health insurance can be shared at a cheaper rate. So, really - in many ways - a married couple receives a subsidy from the state. In return for that subsidy, a married couple increases the tax payer base (and loves doing it). They ensure a maintenance of demography for the state. Of course, you could argue that sterile couples also marry and elderly and so on, but those cases are rare and are probably not cost efficient for the state to determine if they're a viable couple for propagation.

A homosexual couple obviously serves no such benefit to the state. Unless they do something else for the state, they are essentially trying to achieve these subsidies without providing benefit. It could be argued that lesbian couples at least have the capacity to propagate, but the act of marriage itself does not guarantee or even speculate that result.

Other than these "marriage benefits" stated, the U.S. does not regulate any other obvious attribute of marriage. Gay couples are free to own a home together, a car, share their wealth in whatever ways suit them. They can live together, love each other and build a home. Gay couples are, however, asking the State to recognize a marriage between two men or two women simply because they love each other. States understand that such a recognition could result in any such marriage based on the same criteria. Let your imagination roll.....

That's my Thecular view!
 
J

Jullianna

Guest
#3
From a strictly secular view, there was a time (not so long ago) when homosexual activities were illegal in the US. Don't know about your country. Due to social pressures, those laws have changed. How long will it be before sexual activities that are now considered illegal become socially acceptable and we have to cater to them too? When you take the ever growing number of minor sex slaves into consideration and how acceptable this practice has become among certain cultures, it's not that far-fetched a notion. Changing laws based upon abnormal sexual preferences is a dangerous precedent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rachelsedge

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2012
3,659
79
48
33
#4
From a strictly secular view, there was a time (not so long ago) when homosexual activities were illegal in the US. Don't know about your country. Due to social pressures, those laws have changed. How long will it be before sexual activities that are now considered illegal become socially acceptable and we have to cater to them too? When you take the ever growing number of minor sex slaves into consideration and how acceptable this practice has become among certain cultures, it's not that far-fetched a notion. Changing laws based upon abnormal sexual preferences is a dangerous precedent.
This is a good point, but I have heard from the homosexual propaganda that it's about "mutuality". Two people mutually attracted to each other and agreeing to their behavior and "it doesn't hurt anybody". Those who push for pedophilia or sex slavery to be made legal won't be able to go far due to the fact that the second party (the slaves and the children) do not consent. But, then you get into things like statutory rape, where the minor party technically "consented", but because of their age, it doesn't hold.

I'm not trying to argue for homosexuality, just a thought. That said, I could still see what you are saying happening.

I think one could argue against even the mutuality aspect of it, though. Just because two people do something together mutually doesn't make it right or safe.
 
J

Jullianna

Guest
#5
This is a good point, but I have heard from the homosexual propaganda that it's about "mutuality". Two people mutually attracted to each other and agreeing to their behavior and "it doesn't hurt anybody". Those who push for pedophilia or sex slavery to be made legal won't be able to go far due to the fact that the second party (the slaves and the children) do not consent. But, then you get into things like statutory rape, where the minor party technically "consented", but because of their age, it doesn't hold.

I'm not trying to argue for homosexuality, just a thought. That said, I could still see what you are saying happening.

I think one could argue against even the mutuality aspect of it, though. Just because two people do something together mutually doesn't make it right or safe.
That's just it, FOR NOW children are protected in our country (not nearly as much as you might think or as I would prefer). In others, women are selling their children as sex slaves and few think a thing of it. In some cultures children have no value (many are left alongside the road to die as adults pass them by), nor are they protected. As this world becomes more and more given over to a depraved mind, it's not so out there to believe there will come a time when children will no longer be protected here either. Look at how the sex crimes against children stats have risen already.

For NOW mutuality is also protected (AGAIN, not as much or as well as it should be). In such a culture, I'm not sure it will always be. Even now victims of heterosexual rape are told they did something to bring it upon themselves (I've even seen it in these forums), so I'm not sure that holds water either. We have been warned in scripture that this world will become as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Those days have already begun. Lot's guests were most definitely not mutually consenting and those who came for them had no issue with it. Those days will come as well. Rape will be okay. Incest will be okay. Homosexuality will be okay. Bestiality will be okay.

This world is not going to get better. We know that. It's going to get worse. MUCH worst. Mutuality will become a thing of the past in the world scripture tells us lies ahead. This is why I'm saying it is a dangerous precedent. The mutuality garbage is indeed propaganda, as you said.

When we look at it NOW, we doubt there will come a day when pedophilia and rape are okay, but there was a day when our predecessors never thought we would turn on the TV and see people shoving what they do behind closed doors down our throats either. It was not so long ago that Ricky and Lucy couldn't even sleep in the same bed and now look at us, you know? We are on a very slippery slope and picking up speed quickly.

And I agree that mutuality does not make a thing right or safe. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Jullianna

Guest
#6
More arguments to look into -

"Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019."


Not sure what your laws are re: civil rights, but:

"Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories."

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rachelsedge

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2012
3,659
79
48
33
#7
Very good points, Jullianna. I read an article today that talked about how a couple was awarded $50 million because of the "wrongful birth" of their disabled child, just last month. Basically, had the tests they had taken pre-birth not been read wrong, they would have aborted their child and now they are "stuck" with a mentally and physically disabled child.

They were paid $50 million dollars because they did not have the information they need to kill their son.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, Stuey, my point is that I see you are right, Jullianna, and that is only one piece of evidence among thousands of just how slippery the slope is that this world is on.
 
Mar 22, 2013
4,718
124
63
Indiana
#8
From a strictly secular view, there was a time (not so long ago) when homosexual activities were illegal in the US. Don't know about your country. Due to social pressures, those laws have changed. How long will it be before sexual activities that are now considered illegal become socially acceptable and we have to cater to them too? When you take the ever growing number of minor sex slaves into consideration and how acceptable this practice has become among certain cultures, it's not that far-fetched a notion. Changing laws based upon abnormal sexual preferences is a dangerous precedent.
I agree. we allow these abnormal things to go on its the slippery slope. whats next? in 20 years will it be legal in the USA to marry a 6 year old? marry a horse? marry multipal people? where does it end?
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
#9
In Australia it isn't to do with financial rights/legal rights - de facto couples (including homosexual couples) are extended the same rights. (which I agree with - barring adoption of children, but single people can adopt which makes that entire argument a bit moot)

The issue is about the legal right to marry.

Also, while I understand the fear, I don't think making comparisons to marrying minors etc is particularly fair - the argument supporting gay marriage is that it is two consensual people can get married. With minors, bestiality etc - there is the issue of consent which can't be given. Having said this - the argument with regards to polygamous marriage is totally valid - the same arguments which justify gay marriage justify polygamous marriage.
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
#10
Sorry for not engaging more deeply - sleepy now, will reply in detail later.
 
B

biscuit

Guest
#11
I agree. we allow these abnormal things to go on its the slippery slope. whats next? in 20 years will it be legal in the USA to marry a 6 year old? marry a horse? marry multipal people? where does it end?
That's why Jesus is coming home very soon, and put an end to this nonsense. I am a pre-trib believer and believe we will see Him in about a decade.
 
J

Jullianna

Guest
#12
In Australia it isn't to do with financial rights/legal rights - de facto couples (including homosexual couples) are extended the same rights. (which I agree with - barring adoption of children, but single people can adopt which makes that entire argument a bit moot)

The issue is about the legal right to marry.

Also, while I understand the fear, I don't think making comparisons to marrying minors etc is particularly fair - the argument supporting gay marriage is that it is two consensual people can get married. With minors, bestiality etc - there is the issue of consent which can't be given. Having said this - the argument with regards to polygamous marriage is totally valid - the same arguments which justify gay marriage justify polygamous marriage.
The consent of the minor's parent could be given, as it can be now for teens to marry in some states here. It's simply a matter of lowering the age. If a parent doesn't think anything of selling a child, they won't be hesitant to sign a consent to marry.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#13
My personal view on it is out there compared to everyone else. I don't think the government should be in a position to decide if a marriage is valid in the first place, even heterosexual ones. Ya ya, I know...legal stuff, tax stuff, dividing wealth in case of a divorce. I don't care about any of that stuff. Marriage is functionally more like a business transaction these days than a sacred union. It matters little to me what the government legally recognizes.
 
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
#14
What's the Aussie prejudice when they see their children kissing in the mouth of same sexed people?

Bypassing Christian ideas or dogmas, what does that marriage serve, when many people still cheating on, when no biological children are sought and it seems money is the issue behind that hypocritical acceptance we may show, unless someone comes to kiss me in the mouth and I know she or he has AIDS?

We cannot rule their right, their sexual CHOICE, but who can stop theend result?
 

Stuey

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2009
892
4
18
#15
Thanks for that thought Jullianna.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with teenagers marrying at 16 - with consent of their parents. Whatever the age of consent for sex is should be that for marriage probably. But yeah - the problem I guess comes where you don't have responsible parents and the child doesn't have full control over their actions. Hmmm.
 
I

iTOREtheSKY

Guest
#16
My personal view on it is out there compared to everyone else. I don't think the government should be in a position to decide if a marriage is valid in the first place, even heterosexual ones. Ya ya, I know...legal stuff, tax stuff, dividing wealth in case of a divorce. I don't care about any of that stuff. Marriage is functionally more like a business transaction these days than a sacred union. It matters little to me what the government legally recognizes.
LOL..you sound like my Punk Rock friend. She's an Anthropology teacher & she used to hold strongly to the belief that marriage is basically just legalized prostitution,nothing more. (not sure if she still feels that way)
 
J

Jullianna

Guest
#17
Thanks for that thought Jullianna.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with teenagers marrying at 16 - with consent of their parents. Whatever the age of consent for sex is should be that for marriage probably. But yeah - the problem I guess comes where you don't have responsible parents and the child doesn't have full control over their actions. Hmmm.
I can see how it might seem farfetched to some people, but some of the things I have seen lead me to believe that we are not all that far away from a society that would turn its back on child sex slaves, just as they are now in my country because the majority of them come from other places. When you have arrested a woman for prostituting her own 12 year old, among other tweens, or women giving their children to men in exchange for drugs, it's not farfetched at all. :(