The Logic of Gay Marriage Equality

[MaggieMye]

except you can get a completely godless marriage at a courthouse. So if two dudes want to go their and get hitched sure. Thats part of the whole thing were the US will establish no religion. Yeah nothing states the US constitution has to follow christian law. If you dont like it move to a theocracy. Their you can be sure gay marriage will never happen.

Romans 13:1[ Be Subject to Government ] Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God
1~Just because a marriage is not in a church does not mean God is not in it.
2~Because the Church was supposed to oversee the function of the government but has relinquished its authority, our governments (world wide) now say that homosexual marriage is "legal'. How sad is that?? ...not to mention ignorant and irresponsible of the church ...goint waaaay back.
Maggie

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It's not written slightly differently so you're question is of no positive substantial consequence. There may be; however, some risk of a negative consequence if you are able to deceive someone away from the way it is written into conjured error.

I repeat a question I asked in another thread. If the bible was written slightly differently and said homosexuality was divine and the only way into
Heaven, would you now be sleeping with Men?

 

[Shiloah]

actually if you google some churches in florida, they are openly performing marriages of gays/homosexuals claiming that its 'under God'. While I do not agree with them, it's being done in the name of 'God'

Well that may be, or I do know that's true, but you know those people aren't Christians. In fact, they're the perfect example of what Christ said. "Those that love Me do what I say." Also, if they contradict scriptures, Jesus said the spirit wasn't from God.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You've made a common mistake here of confusing traditional tolerance with the new tolerance which is decidedly intolerant.

The New Tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children: Bob Hostetler, Josh D. McDowell: 9780842370882: Amazon.com: Books




Traditional tolerance is to recognize and respect the right of others to have beliefs, practices, etc. you don't share or hold equal to your own. The new tolerance is vastly different. I challenge to read the above book.

Let's face it, religion does not have the influence on society it once did. And while that influence has faded, tolerance has therefore increased.

 

[4enlightment]

[video=youtube_share;KUO5X8pO4yc]http://youtu.be/KUO5X8pO4yc[/video]

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

this arguement is kinda lame, its saying they are all equal because they have the same exact rights.

and yeah it makes sense, but thats like saying, "We all have access to stealing from a house,"

some people are just Not gonna do it, I am sorry, but not everyone robs houses.

 

[Need2Know]

Romans 1:26-32 (KJV)
[SUP]26 [/SUP]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [SUP]27 [/SUP]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [SUP]28 [/SUP]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [SUP]29 [/SUP]Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, [SUP]30 [/SUP]Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [SUP]31 [/SUP]Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: [SUP]32[/SUP]Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I believe there's some on here that need to take up their argument with God, because it's His word, not ours.

That's a bit of a cop out though isn't it.

If I said I hated the jews and wanted them dead, I couldn't relinquish responsibility in a disussion and say 'hey take it up with Hitler, they are his words not mine'

If someone believes in something they should stand behind, defend and argue their position, and not refer their opponents to someone else.

All that does is make you feel entitled to a controversial opinion but dont want to be held accountable for it.

You can't have it both
Ways

 

[GodfreyB]

when you actually examine in detail the marriage rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals, you realize that they have already been perfectly equal since the founding of Canada and the U.S. I will summarize his point as follows:
What marriage right(s) do I have then as an adult heterosexual? I have (and only ever had) one single marriage right, and that is to marry an adult female who is not in my immediate family. I have absolutely no other right(s) than that one. Now here the most important and essential question arises: do homosexual men in North America (both now and in its entire history) have that exact same right? Absolutely! Every single male homosexual that has ever lived in North America has always had, and continues to have, the right to marry an adult female not in his immediate family.
So if it is agreed that I as a heterosexual male have only one marriage right, and every homosexual male always possessed that exact same right, then in what way is there inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding marriage? There is no inequality at all, and there never has been. This "equality" argument used by the homosexual movement (and now used by many sympathetic Christians) fails at the most basic logical level. If fails logically in this way; if a homosexual gains a marriage right that I do not have (marrying within the same sex) how would that make us equal? Not only does that not make us equal, that actually makes homosexuals superior in rights to every other social group, because they would be attaining a brand new right no one else ever had.

Hi Matthew,
I'm happy to just address the specific logical challenge that you put forward, as it does not look like anybody else has answered it in this way yet.

1. "Homosexuals males have the same rights as heterosexual males".
That would be true from the perspective of who they can marry. It would not be true from the perspective of who they can marry as relevant to them. Because the group of heterosexual men and the group of homosexual men have different needs.
An analogy would be if you had two children and you decided you were going to pay for both their soccer practice. You just gave them both the "same" right, and they have "equality" in your eyes. But one child is not interested in soccer at all and even though you are giving them the right to soccer, they are not exercising it because it is of no use to them. They would much prefer the right to have dancing lessons on Saturdays.
It's the same with homosexuals. They are asking for a right that would be useful to them.
Saying that "they have the same right" is called the "apples and oranges" logical fallacy. I believe the argument from the book you are quoting, fails logically.

2. "if a homosexual gains a marriage right that I do not have (marrying within the same sex), that makes homosexuals superior in rights because they attained a right that no one else ever had"
The proposition of this argument is false. It is not true that making gay marriage legal would give gays more rights than you have. You too would equally be given the right to marry men if you wished. I don't think you'd be required to submit proof of homosexuality when getting a marriage license You would be free to marry within the same sex, and equally free to not marry men. They, and you at the same time, would be given a right that no one else ever had before. It's just that that right happens to not apply to you. But it applies to them.

Does that make sense?

 

[mustaphadrink]

Alright i see why people think what they do, I just dont think we should be trying to say who people can and cant love. IN the US they at least no the ramifications of what we think about what they are doing. They dont care. And while I will never goes as far as to be an 'activist' and participate in pro-marriage rallies or whatever, I will not vote against it.

It seems to me that the homosexual activists in general will always try and accuse us of saying what we are not saying. This post is a classic example when it says "I don't think we should be trying to say who people can and can't love."

No one has said that or is saying that. To say that you would have to make homosexuality illegal.

Homosexuals by and large do love who they want to love without fear or favour. The biggest problem with this is the homosexuals themselves because what they call love is more a case of lust, that is why their partnerships don't last very long. They seem to jump from person to person as the novelty wears off.

A young homosexual said to me that after several Mr. Rights he was still looking for Mr. Right.

And you don't need marriage to allow someone to love another or lack of marriage to stop them from loving each other. My wife and I loved each other before we got married. If we were not allowed to marry, we would have still loved each other, so for a homosexual to say we are deciding who can and cannot love each other is to say the least bunkum.

No one needs marriage to show that they love each other. The fact that they do is a choice they make to confirm that love, so to say as some homosexuals do they are second class citizens because they are not allowed to marry is non sequitur. My wife and I have been together for 44 years and our love is as strong as ever.

We created our own equality (I give, she takes). We didn't need a piece of paper to do that for us and if we hadn't created our own equality, a piece of paper is not going to do that for us.

 

[ThomistColin]

Civil unions are acceptable since that is a render unto Caesar. Also, it protects the legal rights in a will.

 

[Atwood]

A discussion of gay was started. Gay meant happy and carefree. Should we go along with this rhetoric of labeling men lying with men as "gay"?

As to logic, this is not a matter of logic, but of special pleading. And some nations, with all their glorious logic, have found a way to logic themselves in to self-destruction.

I think that the cultural battle may have been fought the wrong way, going back to Rowe v Wade. What we should have focused on was the evil of legislation from the bench. We now have an oligarchy making the laws, regardless of what the people or their reps vote into law. The USA constitution was defective in not addressing the issue of who interprets the constitution and not providing for forced recall votes on judges who legislate from the bench. I think that a simple majority of either house of Congress should be able to vote by simple majority by itself to make a judge stand for recall election at once on a charge of legislating from the bench. And if both houses agree by majority vote that legislation from the bench occurred by way of Declaring a law Unconstitutional, that decision should be vacated at once.

 

[Timeline]

When you get right down to it Marriage is an institution started by God. Which, it is funny, our ridiculous government shouldn't be able (according to its own interpretation of separation of church and state) to have anything to do with marriage both because it belongs to God and "our" misuse of "separation of church and state".

 

[Zmouth]

When you get right down to it Marriage is an institution started by God. Which, it is funny, our ridiculous government shouldn't be able (according to its own interpretation of separation of church and state) to have anything to do with marriage both because it belongs to God and "our" misuse of "separation of church and state".

Luke 20:34-37
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

[Kerry]

When you get right down to it Marriage is an institution started by God. Which, it is funny, our ridiculous government shouldn't be able (according to its own interpretation of separation of church and state) to have anything to do with marriage both because it belongs to God and "our" misuse of "separation of church and state".

Isn't our government under Christ or did you miss something?

 

[didymos]

Marriage is an institution, biblically defined as bond between male and female. Hence 'gay marriage' as a term is contradiction in itself. Mind you, I'm not contesting (or defending for that matter) the right of two people of the same gender to get a civil union here. My comment is just about the term 'gay marriage.'

 

[Kerry]

Marriage is an institution, biblically defined as bond between male and female. Hence 'gay marriage' as a term is contradiction in itself. Mind you, I'm not contesting (or defending for that matter) the right of two people of the same gender to get a civil union here. My comment is just about the term 'gay marriage.'

***edited. There are more tactful ways to get a point across on a Christian forum

 

[didymos]

.

Tmi brother, tmi.

Anyway, I'm not trying 'to be political' with God at all, I always take scripture very seriously.
Again, in this particular case my comment was about the term 'gay marriage' ONLY,
don't read more into it than that.

 

[Timeline]

Luke 20:34-37
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Yes, I am aware of this verse. But God did start marriage. Marriage is from God, and yet of government fells they have the right to govern marriage. They think that they can make it "legal" for man to marry man. But as I said before, that separation of church and state (according to our courts) does not allow them to be involved.

 

[Timeline]

Isn't our government under Christ or did you miss something?

Yes, the world is under Christ. But our government has removed, or at least is trying to remove itself from God. You know this.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Civil unions are acceptable since that is a render unto Caesar. Also, it protects the legal rights in a will.

That is a furphy as you can leave what you want to who you want.