Poll

What are your views on homosexuals and/or letting them wed?

I accept them.
51 (66.2%)
I tolerate them.
6 (7.8%)
It's flat out wrong.
7 (9.1%)
I don't really care.
9 (11.7%)
I have mixed views. (Describe)
4 (5.2%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Print

Author Topic: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 228079 times)

Sapphira

  • Inquiring
« Reply #330 on: October 18, 2012, 12:36:32 PM »
At the moment, I don't have time to fully respond, but...

In the context of my post, when I speak of "religion," I mean it in the sense of one's personal convictions, opinions, and/or outlook, whether those views have ties to an actual religion or not.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 12:38:40 PM by Sapphira »
"The surest way to happiness is to lose yourself in a cause greater than yourself."

Hello:)

  • Goodbye:(
« Reply #331 on: October 18, 2012, 12:38:29 PM »
I think religion shouldn't be involved with marriage, because then it's not up to the person to marry.
Good sir

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #332 on: October 18, 2012, 02:40:25 PM »
If the government legalizes gay marriage, it effectively forces people to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, whether or not they believe or agree with it. Likewise, if the government bans gay marriage, it forces people to accept gay marriage as invalid, again, whether or not they agree with it. By the government controlling marriage—essentially, a religious/personal concept—it takes away the freedom of religion.

My issue with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that legal marriage is equivalent to the Sacrament of Matrimony.  If the government extends legal marriage rights to same-sex couples, then I do not see how the sacrament of marriage is affected.  My understanding is that marriage as a religious/personal concept is not controlled by the government: the government issues marriage licenses to allow couples access to 1,049 federal rights, none of which include the consummation of their vows or a blessing from their God(s).  If same-sex couples were allowed receive legal marriage licenses, wouldn't those who disagree with the morality of same-sex relationships still be able to practice their religion and live their lives in accordance to their own beliefs?

People are always emphasizing "separation of church and state," yet the concept of marriage is inherently intertwined in both. Therein lies the problem. Marriage—the religious, personal concept—should, ideally, be completely separated from the legal concept—civil unions. Don't just call them different names, make them two different concepts.

Why is it necessary to give legal marriage a different name?  So far, actual civil unions do not afford a couple all the same federal benefits as a legal marriage does.  And current marriages recognized by the State do not require that either party affiliates with any organized religion (let alone the same religion).  Clearly there is already a distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage.  Insisting that legal marriage change its name before including same-sex couples does not seem fair.  It suggests that same-sex couples are incapable of the same commitment and legal integrity that is expected of opposite-sex couples.

I would also like to point out that there are religions that affirm/value same-sex relationships!  Including many denominations of Christianity.  This video is the most comprehensive on the theological debate regarding the validity of homosexuality within the context of the Bible.  It's long, but covers all the bases:
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY</a>
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #333 on: October 18, 2012, 03:35:24 PM »
Markio's post is the exact reason why I posted what I did. I am a religious man, yes. My personal opposition to same-sex marriages or even same-sex unions is not because of (but, incidentally in keeping with) my Catholic faith.
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

« Reply #334 on: October 18, 2012, 04:03:28 PM »
My opinion on the subject has been repeated ad infinitum, as has my opinion on religion (particularly the Abrahamic faiths). So yeah. I see no good justification for not allowing gays to wed.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Hello:)

  • Goodbye:(
« Reply #335 on: October 18, 2012, 04:13:40 PM »
At the moment, I don't have time to fully respond, but...

In the context of my post, when I speak of "religion," I mean it in the sense of one's personal convictions, opinions, and/or outlook, whether those views have ties to an actual religion or not.
That's religion
Good sir

« Reply #336 on: October 18, 2012, 04:20:25 PM »
How do one's "opinions and convictions" have anything to do with religion unless they're actually formed from religious doctrines?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #337 on: October 18, 2012, 04:29:25 PM »
While I'm not necessarily comfortable with the apparent intertwining of church and state on marriage, I think we actually do a pretty good job of keeping the two marriages separate already. For example, conservative Christians typically hold that divorcing someone and marrying someone else is immoral, unless the divorce was for a valid Biblical reason. There's nothing stopping a divorced person from getting a marriage license from the government, but some churches will choose not to recognize it, and may choose not to allow that person into their congregation. People (and churches) right now are perfectly free to say "Yeah, but that's not a real marriage" to remarried divorcees, and in the future they ought to be just as free to deny the "realness" of same-sex marriages, without impacting the legal benefits of civil marriage.

My dad is divorced from his first wife, and as far as I know, it wasn't for a Biblically valid reason in the eyes of most conservative Christians. Further, I was born out of wedlock, and my mother did not marry my biological father (in violation of Leviticus). If the conservative doctrinal definition of marriage were legally binding in its entirety (which some would like to see happen), then their marriage would be invalid, and our family wouldn't have qualified for all the legal benefits and tax breaks that marriage affords, and who knows where we'd be now. If my parents can be legally married despite not fitting every Christian's definition of marriage, same-sex couples ought to be too.

As for Christian arguments supporting same-sex relations, I prefer Justin Lee's arguments. Matthew Vines's video is good too, but I think he does make a few arguments that are a bit specious. Ben Adam has a somewhat more liberal treatment that focuses more indepth on the historical background of Rome, and A Letter To Louise makes some interesting points that I haven't seen much elsewhere.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 01:20:38 AM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

Hello:)

  • Goodbye:(
« Reply #338 on: October 18, 2012, 04:35:00 PM »
How do one's "opinions and convictions" have anything to do with religion unless they're actually formed from religious doctrines?
Religion is someone's opinions and morals, so yeah, and I mean creating religion, not based off a current one.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 04:51:56 PM by Hello:) »
Good sir

« Reply #339 on: October 18, 2012, 04:51:22 PM »
No, that's one's philosophy. Religion concerns beliefs pertaining to spirituality and/or transcendence and has no bearing on your opinions or morals unless you let it.

EDIT: Your edited post makes less sense than your last one.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 04:57:00 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Hello:)

  • Goodbye:(
« Reply #340 on: October 18, 2012, 04:58:49 PM »
Yeah, you're right
Good sir

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #341 on: October 18, 2012, 05:18:04 PM »
I just noticed that the question in the poll is flawed. Asking whether you "accept" a homosexual (whatever that means) is a essentially different question than whether it is permissible for them to wed. In responding to the poll, one must draw a distinction between an understanding, appreciation, and genuine love for homosexual persons as opposed to permission for them to wed.

I have in mind that it might be possible to say that "I accept them..." and to say that allowing them to wed is "flat out wrong."

Just saying that the categories available to us in this topic are not quite fair.
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

« Reply #342 on: October 18, 2012, 05:19:41 PM »
one must draw a distinction between an understanding, appreciation, and genuine love for homosexual persons as opposed to permission for them to wed.

I think allowing them to wed goes along with the whole "understanding, appreciation, and genuine love" thing.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #343 on: October 18, 2012, 05:29:23 PM »
That is not true.

Suppose my son were a serial arsonist. He has burned down many buildings. He is by all counts a wicked individual. He deserves to be in prison. Still, as his father, I might love in in virtue of his being my son. I still might love him as my son, despite my hatred of his egregious deeds.

This is not to draw an equivocation between homosexual acts and arson, but it is to demonstrate that one's acts, while related to his personhood, are not the determinate factor of it. Thus, I might still love somebody despite his actions.

For an example a little closer to home, it is certainly possible that you still love very much somebody who hurt you in a very profound and specific way. In a way that you can name. This action has not stopped you from being able to love that person.

Thus, actions are related to persons, but actions are not persons.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 05:36:43 PM by Koopaslaya »
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

« Reply #344 on: October 18, 2012, 05:36:59 PM »
That's a very convoluted way of saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin." To which I say that sincerely loving someone means allowing them to participate in acts that contribute to their own happiness and aren't detrimental to anyone else, regardless if it's a sin (whatever that is) in some religious book. 
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Print