I also have a hard time with this whole issue. The crux of position #1 is that same-sex marriage is wrong, but somehow, high divorce rates among straights are okay enough to ignore.
The Bible mentions divorce many more times than it mentions homosexuality, yet it's homosexuality that is berated in churches, not divorce. I'd say a couple that is committed and loving, regardless of sexuality, deserves marriage much more than two straight kids who divorce six months later.
@Russebby See my link below for a few of many reasons why Christians should never support homosexuality. I don't think that making homosexuality illegal would be helpful or do much to stop it...but the govt. should never be in the business of promoting things that are harmful to life as homosexuality most certainly is.
@TruthIsLife7 You really didn't reply to the assertion I made, that divorce is mentioned many more times in the Bible, yet our society seems to have little issue with high divorce rates. Because of this, I have to blow you off, and I stand by my thesis, that a couple in a loving and committed relationship, regardless of their sexuality, deserves a state-recognized marriage much more than two kids who will be divorced in six months. Marriage is for life, not disposable, and that's your flaw.
doesn't marriage bring benefits , like tax breaks and lower insurance? the third option seems kind of dumb when you think of that and how the government regulates it. personally, in the us there's separation of church and state so the whole religious aspect of it all shouldn't be considered.
Let's take a look at the third idea. If, marriage is ordained outside of the government it will not fall to casinos, just being logical. It will fall to churches. And how many churches are going to want to approve gay marriage? Not many. I do not support it. And I am not saying a view either way at this time, but third idea is a pointless way of running from a debate.
Position #4: Everyone recognized as married by the state, only straight couples recognised by their religious organization. Reason both will be recognised officially, statistically and in court but marriage doesnt need to be religious, religious groups will never accept gay marriage because that is accepting that their religion is "wrong"
@CoolParkourName I hold this exact same position. The offered position #3 does not account for state sanctioned benefits that 1 and 2 have. That is unless we do away with state sanctioned marriage benefits altogether.
everyone has to understand that America (where i live) was founded and is run by straight people. so of course straight people are going to make rules that they like. if you don't like what they say then go to another country. you can't change things just because you want them to change. you have to think of the big picture.
@bossman1010101010101 excuse me, but who's to say any of the founders of our country were actually straight? there are gay people everywhere, they always HAVE BEEN. You're just closed-minded. we were born here, we belong here. This is OUR country and we should have FREEDOM. Things are changed all of the time. It's called "Progress"
i'm sorry but the good professor wrongly drags aristotle into this discussion. aristotle, like any greek of his time, would never have considered "gay marriage", which is literally meaningless, still less about how justice might have enveloped such a topic. justice and marriage have nothing to do with one another according to the ancients. this guy is being cute and "relevant" with his liberal, "open-minded" (read moronic) audience.
Recognition of marriage is antithetical to a conception of a limited government. It is right and good that people want to bestow a measure of honor to the institution of marriage. It is unfortunate that they want to enforce recognition of that honor at the point of a gun.
@hasatum I disagree. A limited government would and should still define legal contracts and enforce them. To violate a contract would constitute a form of fraud which is an indirect form of force (see Capitalism the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand). A government limited to the protection of individual rights protects one from force, including indirect force, a form of which is fraud, a form of which is the violation of contracts - including marital contracts.
@manofoss Of course marriage can be a legal contract, but why does it need to be? Fraud entails deception for the purpose of personal gain or damage to another person. Marriage should not involve personal gain except between those involved in the contract as a product of recognition by their community. As such, it was traditionally the community that provided that recognition. It was only with the advent of the progressive tax that the state felt a need to get involved.
And when you assume that other species has the same right to this planet definitelly is visible that our numbers are scary high... One cannot have other conclusion that either we find those earth like planets or applied in ways to slowly reduce our number to something who allowed: A. That everybody has a fair chance in this planet... B. That other species are not going to extion to feed our needs at the present numbers we are...
arghh 5 is obvious trying to draw a line in overpopulation and that it's fallacie, because is not a exactelly number, however using some assumptions one can see the planet is overpopulated and dangerous so. I assume that everybody has certain rights like the right to be norish and have shelter as well some kind of acess to medicine... And that would require 6 planets in resource to do so... Worse I assume that all species in this planet has the right to live as well...
There should be marriage for everyone. For straight people, gay people, etc. But you need the state to recognize the marriage system all together and allow it in all states like the constitution says, because without the state, there are certain people that wouldn't be allowed to get married because of certain religous groups that bar them from it.
I noticed that.. ok first of all I am a straight guy who thinks gay marriage should be allowed and things like prop 8 are ridiculous and full of lies and religious bigotry.. ok back to my point.. I noticed that people who do not think gay marriage should be allowed are always.. ugly.. inside and out.. tyrese gibson, john mccain, Fred Phelps... Sometimes I think they're just fed up of not finding someone who loves them so they deny others love.. Just live and let live... sigh..
I definitely think marriage is more of a religious thing. The state should allow unions between any two people, it's up to the couples to find a church if they want to be married which, to me, means united under whatever god they believe in. I know if I were to be married it would mainly be for tax breaks and even though I'm heterosexual I would probably have just a civil union because I don't have a religion...If that makes sense.
In a sense, I already live in the third option. People already have same-sex and multiple partner marriages. I'm not sure we can ignore that reality. We can say that they aren't valid, but they do exist. So, it's really that the federal and state governments don't recognize many forms of marriage.
@Chinua3: Biologically, it is natural. There is no such thing as unnatural. There is not a thing on this green-blue ball that is not natural.
When it comes to 'the debate', I'm with option number 2. The reason being that it makes marriage a human right based on love, not on gender or prejudice. As much as I think marriage in itself is shallow and a waste of time and money, option 3 is merely a guise for the homophobes who 'do care' about how it is defined. We haven't evolved to option 3, yet.
@twosidesandthetruth - Are you retarded? There is no such thing as unnatural? Heterosexual sex is natural because it is the only way human beings can reproduce and it is the whole reason for the existence of our species. Homosexual sex is NOT natural because it is unrelated to reproduction, and furthermore, the anus is not naturally designated for sexual acts and anal sex is actually quite harmful physically.
Reproducing is not the entirety of the equation, at least not on the individual scale. Chances are that homosexual traits are selected for naturally because they benefit populations in other ways than just popping babies out (helping take care of the youth, for example). Either way, if it weren't natural, it wouldn't be found in non-human animal species. Sex for pleasure isn't a phenomenon unique to humans either. There's nothing unnatural about sex for sex's sake.
Uh, the laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe behavior that actually takes place. The laws of nature don't answer "How SHOULD this behave?" but "How DOES this behave?" You're trying to manipulate people's attitudes by suggesting "unnatural" as an object of the artificial, which is kind of a baseless allegation because if natural things were always better we'd prefer caves to houses.
@semmadali Biologically speaking, it is unnatural. However, it still doesn't mean you ought to "destroy" them. Everybody is different and I don't hate you for your differences. Why should it be any different with gay people?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What examples are you showing to the new generation? I feel discusted when im near a gay guy. They're always looking at me. I cant stand their queary voice; i think we should not allow them get marr...
I agree with position number three, but I think we CAN make a judgment as to what marriage is for.
However, I do not agree that the state should be making that judgment. For the state to make a theological/philosophical judgment, which does not have its roots grounded in the protection of human life, then the decision is outside the realm of the State and has now overflowed into the Church.
I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State.
Sure, if you are going to speak of it purely as a utilitarian function then I see no problem with it.
However, the word marriage has serious philosophical/theological/cultural implications. In America you have the right to engage in all of these intellectual practices. For the Government to just endorse the word marriage it has crossed a line.
Call it semantics, but if you talk to any priest they will speak of marriage differently than any rabbi. However, there is no ambiguity in civil unions.
god made adam and eve! that's only two people! obviosly, so there must be only two races! because we all must be like adam and eve! oh, and neither adam nor eve were albino! nor were they hermaphrodites! and they CERTAINLY were not a black-white couple!
What does this have to do with marriage, exactly? I don't recall reading about a wedding ceremony for Adam and Eve.
The very fact that some people would define marriage by what, they claim, is contained in the Bible should throw enormous weight behind option #3, since government is not to be a tool of religious dogma.
I've always said this, position #3 clearly, government should not be involved in a person's marriage. There should be no government marriages, period.
position 3 hands down the state has no obligation to my marriage other than telling me they accept my proposal.. If the state tells me no they do not recognize my proposal then are they telling me no because of moral reasons? Are the moral reasons stemmed off of religious reasons? If so wheres the separation of church and state?
Not the church or state. When did this become the U.S.S.A? I must have fallen asleep. As far as I'm concerned, this is an issue of equality. Is Washington DC living up to the Constitution or False Profits.
Professor Sandel's argument is dim-witted rhetoric. There is no single purpose of marriage and no single benefit to society. There are, instead several. If gay marriage provides only one or two of these benefits, it still may be worthwhile.
He's basing his argument on archaic philosophy which has no business governing anyone's life today.
Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.
"These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate. "
Hahahaha, so true!
If love is the reason for marriage nowadays (and I agree with this statement), there's no reason why same sex marriage should be forbidden. Just my opinion! :)
My reading is , there are so many "inside the closet" gays , they are absolutely fearful that, in case it is bradly allowed here - or other catholic countries - they will have no more reason to stay married withim the status quo.Human beings generally fear what they do not know....
Yes, yes, and yes. Divorce is permitted in islam and completely NORMAL. Iraq, Iran, and saudi are islamic countries and it is legal in all those countries.
Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is MY opinion and I am stating it.
I go with option 1.
Homosexuality is holding mankind back. Sure they can adopt children and raise them and I DO support adoption. But they if they marry someone of their same sex then they can't have kids of their own. I'm not including sperm banks, because that still wouldn't be both of Theirs. Think of it this way, if half of the world population was homosexuals, then the growing population would slow down by 50%.
So then you would also have to demand that all couples must have children. Because childless couples are technically holding mankind back as well. Hell, why don't we make a law that demands everybody must get married and reproduce.
Gosh, not everyone is going to be gay so we don't worry about the world population running out. What's hurting mannkind is that there are still today so many inequal laws. What's hurting mankind is people who try to stand in the way of other's happiness.
It would actually bre extremely benefitial to mankind...OVERPOPULATION is one of the big reasons for poverty, global warming, lack of education and so forth..
@classicallady overpopulation is a myth, the world might be be overpopulated year 5000, but the world is not overpopulated today. You blame "overpopulation" for poverty and lack of education. Can you prove it?
At the same time I don't think that two people of the same gender should get married in any religion similar to Christianity where marriage was invented so you knew which children were yours (more or less),there are a lot of religions (or sects) were people get married/bonded/whatever for LOVE (not saying christian couples don't,but in their religions history it used to be different and in my opinion if your religion needs to be updated to fit in in the modern world;it's a sucky religion.
all religion needs to be done away with. Dogma that is one person telling others how to think, believe and act. If anything this removes you from God. It certainl;y has no place in law. I live in Canada- everyone here is free to marry who they wish by law- it seems so backward that you have this arguement in the US- it's supposed to be a progressive country and it's being run by ignoramouses
As far as I'm aware you can marry here (germany), you just can't do it in a church (if you're homosexual).I think that solution is not so bad especially since less and less people,gay or straight actually want to marry in a church.
But you're right,the US:people of more races and religions and sexual preferences (whether normal or sick) than anywhere else and they're so far behind... At least now they have a president who seems normal and intelligent...
@fentina its all perspective, no? what does it mean to be "behind"? what does "marriage" mean? does anal sex provide babies? does putting finger provide babies? what does anything mean? I only have questions. How old is the oldest man on earth? just because some people seem sure about what everything mean, does not mean you should be.
The worlds great religious traditions emphasize the love of neighbor as well as the love of God, and that compassion, justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people are the religious most authentic & noble expressions. (Copied from an amicus brief submitted to the California Surpreme Court in support of gay marriage) I just couldn't have said it better!
State has to recognize marriage because there are legal consecuences in this social act. If State shoudn´t recognize marriage at all, what about all the legal aspects that turns arrond this legal figure?
The state wouldn't recognize the word "marriage" instead it would recognize "civil unions" (with all the same legal aspects associated with marriage). The state would only conduct civil unions (for gay and straights), and only a religious institution could perform marriages.
Gay people could then get civil unions (with all the same right as heteros), and then get married in a gay friendly religious institution (no institution would be force to perform gay marriages).
The state does need to recognise relationships in some way, for reasons of inheritance, tax and social security, paternity, distribution of shared assets given divorce, medical issues etc etc.
A lot of this is whether or not a gay couple have those same rights under the law. Its just a shame that its tied up with this quasi-religions 'marriage' idea- and it probably shouldnt be.
It would certainly be alot less confusing with religion out of the equation. But when it comes down to what you were talking about, marriage being a topic of government for legal and civil reasons, it also becomes a matter of right for the Church. Because most of what is involved in marriage is associated with the Church, and because the Church has defined marriage unto what it is today, it therefore plays a great role in its discussion, and cannot simply be cast aside.
The Church has already spoken on this issue. All across the country and across Europe there are churches and pastors and congregations who enthusiastically embrace gay marriage.
But marriage has two aspects. It has a religious aspect, but the date when a gay marriage begins has to be recorded by the government for all the same reasons that the date when a heterosexual marriage begins must be recorded.
A Catholic priest is absolutely free to decline to marry two men who are in love and who have decided to make a lifelong commitment to one another. But he can't impose his religious beliefs on a pastor from a Protestant denomination across the street.
And opposing gay marriage DOES offend God and DOES, like so many other decisions the Vatican has made, HURT the image of the Catholic Church.
They are two seperate institutions. And besides, the first US constitution ensures that the government 'shall make no laws regarding religion.'
The government needs laws of relationships for the purposes i outlined above, but this should be in no way associated with the religious concept of 'marriage'. To recognise a religious marriage is to have a law regarding religion.
It has a religious aspect. A gay couple can get married in a church today. There is nothing the government can do to stop a pastor from marrying two people.
But it also has a legal aspect. There is nothing a pastor or priest can do to stop the city clerk from granting a marriage license to a gay couple.
So there is absolute separation of church and state. The state doesn't control the church; the church doesn't control the state.
So two men in California can get married before God today.
The problem is that bigots are continuing the campaign of harassment of homosexuals by trying to deny legal recognition in order to deny gay couples legal protections and in order to have one body of laws for gays and another body of laws for straights.
That's unconstitutional, no matter HOW many propositions get passed.
There is no separate but equal.
We have one set of laws for all Americans, not a different set for each group.
What? Opposing gay marriage offends God??? How? Also, the image of the church doesn't matter. You seem to forget who is actually in control when it comes to the church.
Love is the ultimate virtue. Hate is the ultimate sin. Pastors who preach hate make God EXTREMELY angry because they turn Christians away from loving God.
It is not a sin for a man to fall in love with another man. It is certainly a sin for a man to hate another man purely because of his religion or race or nationality or his orientation.
I think you might be confused with pastors preaching "hate", with pastors preaching what the bible teaches. With your definition "hate" would put Jesus in the same category that you are putting bible preaching pastors in.
You are correct, it is not a sin to love another man, but it is a sin for those two men to have sex.
Jesus never said, 'Hate thy gay neighbor'. What he said was 'Love Thy Neighbor' regardless or their orientation or any other excuse a Christian might come up with to hate.
You are twisting God's words here. You are to love your neighber, which Christians do, but you are also supposed to spread the word of God, which is against two men having sex.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
It says in the Bible, and I quote "If a Bride is found not to be a Virgin, she is to be stoned to death," and it also says "Thou can not shed thy seed on the ground," If I am not mistaken, it also says "If adulterous activity is committed, both the man and the woman are to be stoned"
The Church's argument on this issue is that "These rules were made for a different type, and should be interpreted for today's moral standards,"
Then why, I ask you, can homosexuals not show love for another?
If you open your eyes when you look in the Bible, you can find contradictions for EVERYTHING you just said. It may say "Thou shalt not sleep with a man as thy sleep with a woman," but why, I ask you once more, can we not interpret this for out own modern world?
I, for one, think homosexuality is a natural response to the stimulus of overpopulation. Homosexuals are not unnatural. Chimpanzees and Bonobos display this behavior in the wild, almost daily.
Homosexuality is by no means a natural response to anything.Animals are irrational creatures that do not know what homosexuality is.Animals also practice incest.Does that make it ok? Canibalism and disease are also responses to over population.Your arugment is very Ilogical especially when the fact is that the earth is no where close to being over populated
I suggest you get your fact staight.These rules were not changed,they were fulfilled.I repeat,the laws were not abandoned but fulfilled.Why is it that so many people just pick things out of the bible out of context? If I use your level of intellectual dishonesty I can justify any kind of wrong doing with the bible
Gay men and lesbians don't have penile-vaginal sex (pardon my language), but they do something. What I argue is that it would be perverse to say that they aren't permitted to do that something when they fall in love.
It would also be cruel to say that they aren't allowed to get married once they've fallen in love, if they decide that they want to solemnize with marriage a lifelong commitment to one another.
Jesus welcomes everyone. I don't think he would turn away a gay couple at the door.
I'm saying that the Vatican shouldn't be making people feel guilty about using birth control, since it's obvious that Italians use it quite effectively. (They're population is dropping.)
The Pope and President Bush shouldn't be blocking family planning efforts across the world, as they do.
People have to be able to be sexually active and married without necessarily having children.
The Pope I have a respect for, because his job is directly applied to religion. However, despite being a Republican myself, cannot stand his preaching of religion with the government and the State's system. Religion should be left to the affairs of man in the Church, not in the White House. By even having a certain religion within the government they are contradicting a key point in the Constitution. Another reason why Church and State should be seperated.
But that option, whether to have sexual intercourse or not, is not given to homosexual couples, seeing as what they're doing isn't necessarily "intercourse". It is physical confrontation, maybe even sexual, but it is not intercourse. Therefore, could homosexuals even be/ not be celebate?
I think you just have a particular vision of what marriage should be. You should impose that vision on yourself. But you can't impose that vision on everybody else.
If a couple falls in love and decides never to have children, there is no reason for them to practice lifelong celibacy, is there?
No. If they decide to make a lifelong commitment to one another, and their beliefs prohibit sex outside of marriage, they should be permitted to get married!
Yes, it my vision of the world. You have yours and I have mine. However, I am explaining my point of view, no attempting to impose it on anyone. There is a line that can be crossed where one goes from opinionated to tyrannical, and tries to impose the will of himself on others. I am far from that. It just seems that your opinion is the one in majority favor, in these times anyways.
I think the world is a big place. Protestants should be able to practice Christianity anyway they want.
In the Episcopal Church, one openly gay priest has been named Bishop! He's going to do one of the invocations on day 2 of the Presidential Inaugural on Sunday.
I don't think there really ever was anything wrong with homosexual love, marriage, OR sex. Homophobia was just a mistake humanity made long ago and is just now getting around to correcting. Our ancestors weren't perfect.
While I have nothing against Protestants personally, I don't see the point in having some many groups and sections to a perty that is supposed to be sanctioned together. There are Catholics, and there are Protestants. Except the Protestants have the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. What is the point of claiming a unified realm of religion when they are anything but unified?
And as for that last part, I could not disagree more. I won't go into technical terms of normalcy and how one would define "normal", but based on how a human being is supposed to function, there clearly is something wrong with homosexuality. It is likely to be a mutation of human genetics that has come into existence within our creation. One can see it almost anywhere, even though a probable fraction makes up the homosexual population, likely below a mere .0004%. I see it as clearly wrong.
I think we should have separation of church and state and the government should get out of the marriage business . . .
and stop prohibiting gay marriage.
But they still have to record when the marriage begins.
Some pastors and congregations are passionately in favor of gay marriage. The religious freedom spelled out in the First Amendment dictates that government not interfere in those churches marrying gay couples.
Marriage licenses must be granted if we believe in Freedom.
I'm having trouble seeing what you're saying. The State should get out of deciding marriage, and in this stop prohibiting homosexual unionship? The State is the only reason there is any hope of such a thing. The Catholic Church has set strict guidelines for marriage. They have seemingly denied their unionship permanently. I think marriage should remain religious business, and by the look of it, by doing so homosexual marriage will not be happening anytime soon. Good enough for me.
A Catholic church with a homophobic priest has no impact on the actions of a protestant church across the street that performs gay marriages every week.
While I agree that people need to cut down on having children, namely with India and China, that is not just cause to say focus should not be on procreation as the most important thing in our existence. It is about moderation, and usually poor nations are the culprit for the rampant productions.
However, I don't think someone can be born Jewish. Judaism is a religion. You can be born into a religion, but are not pre-destined by genetics. Jews can only be "created" through teaching/coversion.
Children is the most important thing. Procreation couldn't be less important. There is no urgency to increase the population anywhere except in Italy where all the Catholics are defying the Vatican, apparently, and using birth control.
But it doesn't make sense for the Vatican to be using local conditions to make bad policy decisions on an international scale.
So children are the most important thing, just not through the means of procreation? How else are we supposed to make children, though cloning?
And what do you mean 'bad policy decisions'? I wouldn't exactly call the troubles of China and India 'local' for Italy, even if they're a few thousand miles closer than we are. And maybe a little dictation and restricting on how many children are born by some outside source is necessary. The Chinese/Indian governments certainly aren't prevailing.
Yes, children and procreation are not the same thing. I think we should be far more obsessed than we are with children and their welfare, and far less obsessed with procreation.
I think Christianity has always been too obsessed with sex.
While I can see your point, I think the reason that sex is so big within religion is because that is how life is created with us, and there seems to be something spiritual about that.
Despite the enjoyment of this debate, as it is one of the best i have been part of in a while, and if it is all the same to you, would you mind we continue discussion another time? I'm dead tired and need my sleep.
Yes, I have answered you. SEVERAL TIMES. But for the sake of our arguement, yes, I do see much wrong with two men "falling in love". It defies the purpose of reproduction, the only clear purpose I can see for our existence as a species, and therefore I see as meaningless. You may go on to say that fertility and procreation aren't an issue, but that is the thing. It is the ONLY issue. Homosexuality brings, although is not defined by, the inability to reproduce through their pairings. What is the
point of even pairing up if you cannot reproduce in the first place. You can certainly argue that they may adopt, but so can hetero-sexual couples. Really, there isn't anything that a same-sex couple could accomplish that a heterosexual couple could not.
So, get married to have sex? I'm not really sure that most people respect, or even contemplate, that sort of idea in these "modern" times.
I find it odd how the American culture seems to be slowly degenerating. In the 50s, culture was about science: making it to the moon, using atomic power and trying to prevent World War III. In these times, it is all about celebrities and "reality" TV. It is a shame to see our society degenerating into the cesspool that it is.
Yes, even if you are in love and have made a lifelong commitment, many Christians feel that it would be sinful to become intimate before getting married.
To that note, I don't think I could respond with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
I do not think marriage is necessary to procreate, though I do believe the purpose of unionship is to raise a child that is born through procreation. You could certainly procreate before marriage.
I think that the discipline that many Christians have shown by not having intercourse until marriage should be respected, especially since many Christians no longer marry at very young ages, like 13, as was once practiced.
Procreation is the only issue . . . for people who are obsessed with procreation.
Most people aren't.
If two men got married and wanted children, they could have them, if they wanted. But we can't forbid anyone who is infertile or post-menopausal or who simply doesn't want to have children to get married. Can we?
Do you understand?
It's the Vatican's argument . . . but the Vatican isn't making a very good logical argument.
So, who's talking about 'logic'? Certainly not you. Especially when you speak of 'love' as a dominant force driving people to unionship, instead of referring to it as the chemical combinants that prepair a person for intercourse. I am the logical one. You use emotion as foundation for your argument.
And it seems that you are basing your opinion of that of what is in the majority's eye. What is popular, not what is right or logical. Kind of juvenile, no?
I like how you diagramed this. However, the matter changes when one entity, the two being Church and State, gains power over the other. The State has too much business in the affairs that pertain to the Church. It wouldn't be any more pleasant if the Church had a say in the matters of the governments, and I mean outside the political parties of course. I am vying for the separation of the Church and the State, to become two out of one, and for each opposite to only rule in their own matters.
Here it seems you forget what we already have established. What a man creates, he can govern. So while he cannot claim what he has not developed with body and brain, he can most certainly do so with what he has.
Thomas Edison wished to share his device. It wasn't manditory he hand over his works. He wanted to show his invention to the world. Sure, it could be reproduced in great quantities, but under claimed ownership Edison would own the design and the creation itself.
It seems that we're simply running around in a circle. You say people fall in love, that love is the supreme force in the world, and that procreation has no say if matters of marriage. I retort the opposite, that love is merely science at work in the brain and that procreation is the only significant purpose in life. However, no matter how many times I explain the logic, you say that same exact thing back to me. 'People fall in love'. Now who's being silly?
The Church has the right to offer suggestions. No one is required to follow them. We already established that the Catholic Church didn't invent marriage because, as you pointed out, the word mariatare, to marry was invented before the Catholic Church even existed.
Infertile couples ARE allowed to get married, so infertility is not a relevant issue.
I pointed out? I said the word 'marriage' came from the Latin root 'mariatare', but the practice of what marriage is today, between any two given male and female citizens, is owned by the Church. As 'marriage' is defined today, that is what is owned by the Church. The word itself, as YOU pointed out, came before that time. But we are not speaking of the word now, but the practice.
The Vatican has the right to offer an opinion as to who should or should not get married, but non-Catholics aren't in anyway obligated to follow their suggestions.
Government, in fact, is required NOT to favor one person's religious beliefs over another.
As Catholics, gay Catholics have to make up their minds whether or not they should get married. I urge them to do it. God smiles on love, even if the Vatican doesn't.
Well of course the Church as the right to offer an opinion, especially since they are directly tied to the matter. And it isn't as if non-Catholics would even regard the opinion of the Church, let it be positive or not.
My whole argument is founded on the idea that the government should not have a say in the matters of the Church, therefore denying the State to govern marriage. You keep repeating what is already clear, that the State does not and cannot hold bias toward who can marry.
this guy just blew my mind
TheRawrbaby22 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a complimentary copy of my book, which philosophically defends same-sex marriage:
tinyurl_com/7c3gnvk
(Replace the "_" with a period.)
noblelies 3 months ago
how is ak47 a top comment?
matereymate 4 months ago
@6inches2theleft Nope because in principal offspring is possible.
ak47tacos 7 months ago
I pick position #2.
I also have a hard time with this whole issue. The crux of position #1 is that same-sex marriage is wrong, but somehow, high divorce rates among straights are okay enough to ignore.
The Bible mentions divorce many more times than it mentions homosexuality, yet it's homosexuality that is berated in churches, not divorce. I'd say a couple that is committed and loving, regardless of sexuality, deserves marriage much more than two straight kids who divorce six months later.
Russebby 7 months ago
@Russebby See my link below for a few of many reasons why Christians should never support homosexuality. I don't think that making homosexuality illegal would be helpful or do much to stop it...but the govt. should never be in the business of promoting things that are harmful to life as homosexuality most certainly is.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You really didn't reply to the assertion I made, that divorce is mentioned many more times in the Bible, yet our society seems to have little issue with high divorce rates. Because of this, I have to blow you off, and I stand by my thesis, that a couple in a loving and committed relationship, regardless of their sexuality, deserves a state-recognized marriage much more than two kids who will be divorced in six months. Marriage is for life, not disposable, and that's your flaw.
Russebby 5 months ago
doesn't marriage bring benefits , like tax breaks and lower insurance? the third option seems kind of dumb when you think of that and how the government regulates it. personally, in the us there's separation of church and state so the whole religious aspect of it all shouldn't be considered.
zzzt1421 10 months ago
Let's take a look at the third idea. If, marriage is ordained outside of the government it will not fall to casinos, just being logical. It will fall to churches. And how many churches are going to want to approve gay marriage? Not many. I do not support it. And I am not saying a view either way at this time, but third idea is a pointless way of running from a debate.
TheJimbowism 10 months ago
Meh gay ppl piss me off I'm totally closed minded to it idk why but for some reason i just hate it it just doesn't seem logical.
skateboyjay 11 months ago
last chance Latino women need to meet you rockmycity.info
annajuikjuikol 1 year ago
Did Aristotle even have children?
jshjamaar 1 year ago
Position #4: Everyone recognized as married by the state, only straight couples recognised by their religious organization. Reason both will be recognised officially, statistically and in court but marriage doesnt need to be religious, religious groups will never accept gay marriage because that is accepting that their religion is "wrong"
CoolParkourName 1 year ago 7
@CoolParkourName I hold this exact same position. The offered position #3 does not account for state sanctioned benefits that 1 and 2 have. That is unless we do away with state sanctioned marriage benefits altogether.
Cerulean0987 1 year ago
@fentina Having a child is a right they have by principle, whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
ak47tacos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chat with sexy women ** rockmycity.info **
feeshaniciyani 1 year ago
1:51
BLACKLISTED
CAYOMluver 1 year ago
well, the only 2 moral positions I can defend is marriage for both gays and heterosexuals or no state sanctioned marriage whatsoever
nurbSoldier 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep me warm baby rockmycity.info
tashiascherrerw 1 year ago
Chat with Russian women **leefoxnow.info**
PlkiuMnbvf 1 year ago
everyone has to understand that America (where i live) was founded and is run by straight people. so of course straight people are going to make rules that they like. if you don't like what they say then go to another country. you can't change things just because you want them to change. you have to think of the big picture.
bossman1010101010101 1 year ago
@bossman1010101010101 excuse me, but who's to say any of the founders of our country were actually straight? there are gay people everywhere, they always HAVE BEEN. You're just closed-minded. we were born here, we belong here. This is OUR country and we should have FREEDOM. Things are changed all of the time. It's called "Progress"
heartofalion26 1 year ago
this has nothing to do with aristotle
peruvianhitman 1 year ago
@peruvianhitman amen hitman. go right to the source.
archstan8 1 year ago
i'm sorry but the good professor wrongly drags aristotle into this discussion. aristotle, like any greek of his time, would never have considered "gay marriage", which is literally meaningless, still less about how justice might have enveloped such a topic. justice and marriage have nothing to do with one another according to the ancients. this guy is being cute and "relevant" with his liberal, "open-minded" (read moronic) audience.
archstan8 1 year ago
@archstan8 true. I just read Aristotle on marriage. in his conception gay marriage makes no sense.
peruvianhitman 1 year ago
Recognition of marriage is antithetical to a conception of a limited government. It is right and good that people want to bestow a measure of honor to the institution of marriage. It is unfortunate that they want to enforce recognition of that honor at the point of a gun.
hasatum 1 year ago
@hasatum I disagree. A limited government would and should still define legal contracts and enforce them. To violate a contract would constitute a form of fraud which is an indirect form of force (see Capitalism the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand). A government limited to the protection of individual rights protects one from force, including indirect force, a form of which is fraud, a form of which is the violation of contracts - including marital contracts.
manofoss 1 year ago
@manofoss Of course marriage can be a legal contract, but why does it need to be? Fraud entails deception for the purpose of personal gain or damage to another person. Marriage should not involve personal gain except between those involved in the contract as a product of recognition by their community. As such, it was traditionally the community that provided that recognition. It was only with the advent of the progressive tax that the state felt a need to get involved.
hasatum 1 year ago
gay marriage is all about legalization of human sexual practices or human sexual behavior, thats it
migxp1 1 year ago
And when you assume that other species has the same right to this planet definitelly is visible that our numbers are scary high... One cannot have other conclusion that either we find those earth like planets or applied in ways to slowly reduce our number to something who allowed: A. That everybody has a fair chance in this planet... B. That other species are not going to extion to feed our needs at the present numbers we are...
rfamaralny 1 year ago
arghh 5 is obvious trying to draw a line in overpopulation and that it's fallacie, because is not a exactelly number, however using some assumptions one can see the planet is overpopulated and dangerous so. I assume that everybody has certain rights like the right to be norish and have shelter as well some kind of acess to medicine... And that would require 6 planets in resource to do so... Worse I assume that all species in this planet has the right to live as well...
rfamaralny 1 year ago
There should be marriage for everyone. For straight people, gay people, etc. But you need the state to recognize the marriage system all together and allow it in all states like the constitution says, because without the state, there are certain people that wouldn't be allowed to get married because of certain religous groups that bar them from it.
JASM4collection 1 year ago
I noticed that.. ok first of all I am a straight guy who thinks gay marriage should be allowed and things like prop 8 are ridiculous and full of lies and religious bigotry.. ok back to my point.. I noticed that people who do not think gay marriage should be allowed are always.. ugly.. inside and out.. tyrese gibson, john mccain, Fred Phelps... Sometimes I think they're just fed up of not finding someone who loves them so they deny others love.. Just live and let live... sigh..
vim92 1 year ago
I definitely think marriage is more of a religious thing. The state should allow unions between any two people, it's up to the couples to find a church if they want to be married which, to me, means united under whatever god they believe in. I know if I were to be married it would mainly be for tax breaks and even though I'm heterosexual I would probably have just a civil union because I don't have a religion...If that makes sense.
CakeFace579 1 year ago
In a sense, I already live in the third option. People already have same-sex and multiple partner marriages. I'm not sure we can ignore that reality. We can say that they aren't valid, but they do exist. So, it's really that the federal and state governments don't recognize many forms of marriage.
Quizoid 1 year ago
Hahaha check out the guy bottom-right at 2:08.....he doesn't seem to sure about what's going on
hstrzina 1 year ago
Aristotle was defenetaly bi. Hell he traveled throught his entire life with his "companion" Theofrastus and didnt have sexual relations?
Morningstar91 1 year ago
@Morningstar91 it was a 'platonic' relationship XD
Piccolo7126 1 year ago
The great Pat Benatar said it best..."love is a battlefield". Also, perhaps less relevant, she commands us to "hit me with your best shot".
boggle77 2 years ago
@Chinua3: Biologically, it is natural. There is no such thing as unnatural. There is not a thing on this green-blue ball that is not natural.
When it comes to 'the debate', I'm with option number 2. The reason being that it makes marriage a human right based on love, not on gender or prejudice. As much as I think marriage in itself is shallow and a waste of time and money, option 3 is merely a guise for the homophobes who 'do care' about how it is defined. We haven't evolved to option 3, yet.
twosidesandthetruth 2 years ago
@twosidesandthetruth - Are you retarded? There is no such thing as unnatural? Heterosexual sex is natural because it is the only way human beings can reproduce and it is the whole reason for the existence of our species. Homosexual sex is NOT natural because it is unrelated to reproduction, and furthermore, the anus is not naturally designated for sexual acts and anal sex is actually quite harmful physically.
lukyNUMBERs7evin 2 years ago
Reproducing is not the entirety of the equation, at least not on the individual scale. Chances are that homosexual traits are selected for naturally because they benefit populations in other ways than just popping babies out (helping take care of the youth, for example). Either way, if it weren't natural, it wouldn't be found in non-human animal species. Sex for pleasure isn't a phenomenon unique to humans either. There's nothing unnatural about sex for sex's sake.
caelestis356 2 years ago
@lukyNUMBERs7evin
Uh, the laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe behavior that actually takes place. The laws of nature don't answer "How SHOULD this behave?" but "How DOES this behave?" You're trying to manipulate people's attitudes by suggesting "unnatural" as an object of the artificial, which is kind of a baseless allegation because if natural things were always better we'd prefer caves to houses.
JazzDanceForChildren 1 year ago
Marriage is a war zone.
AGomez1821 2 years ago
Gillani is dead right.
semmadali 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yuck GAYS FUCK GAYS DISGUSTING SHIT FUCCCK !!! I MEAN WATS SO INTRESTING ABOUT SUCKING A COCK OR GETTING FUCKED IN THE ASS
waleedgilani 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gay is against religion. Its against humanity. Dsgusting. Unnatural.. May God Destroy Evry Gay vermin from ths world. Ameen.
semmadali 2 years ago
@semmadali Biologically speaking, it is unnatural. However, it still doesn't mean you ought to "destroy" them. Everybody is different and I don't hate you for your differences. Why should it be any different with gay people?
Chinua3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What examples are you showing to the new generation? I feel discusted when im near a gay guy. They're always looking at me. I cant stand their queary voice; i think we should not allow them get marr...
Chepo760 2 years ago
I agree with position number three, but I think we CAN make a judgment as to what marriage is for.
However, I do not agree that the state should be making that judgment. For the state to make a theological/philosophical judgment, which does not have its roots grounded in the protection of human life, then the decision is outside the realm of the State and has now overflowed into the Church.
I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State.
insidetrip101 2 years ago 4
what about civil unions? do you think the state is within its realm to validate contracts between two people?
cpfishfan14 2 years ago
Sure, if you are going to speak of it purely as a utilitarian function then I see no problem with it.
However, the word marriage has serious philosophical/theological/cultural implications. In America you have the right to engage in all of these intellectual practices. For the Government to just endorse the word marriage it has crossed a line.
Call it semantics, but if you talk to any priest they will speak of marriage differently than any rabbi. However, there is no ambiguity in civil unions.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chepo760 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just like you were born stupid.
EvReSbOMyName 2 years ago
god made adam and eve! that's only two people! obviosly, so there must be only two races! because we all must be like adam and eve! oh, and neither adam nor eve were albino! nor were they hermaphrodites! and they CERTAINLY were not a black-white couple!
Bsteveisme 2 years ago
a touch of sarcasm here for all you serious folks
Bsteveisme 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chepo760 2 years ago
What does this have to do with marriage, exactly? I don't recall reading about a wedding ceremony for Adam and Eve.
The very fact that some people would define marriage by what, they claim, is contained in the Bible should throw enormous weight behind option #3, since government is not to be a tool of religious dogma.
sovietjoybuzzer 2 years ago 2
I've always said this, position #3 clearly, government should not be involved in a person's marriage. There should be no government marriages, period.
razer7echo 2 years ago
position 3 hands down the state has no obligation to my marriage other than telling me they accept my proposal.. If the state tells me no they do not recognize my proposal then are they telling me no because of moral reasons? Are the moral reasons stemmed off of religious reasons? If so wheres the separation of church and state?
zipdyad 2 years ago 2
Who someone mates with is up to them.
Not the church or state. When did this become the U.S.S.A? I must have fallen asleep. As far as I'm concerned, this is an issue of equality. Is Washington DC living up to the Constitution or False Profits.
scottkarras 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please Aristotle was a faggot and a sodomizer
XxPacoimaxX 2 years ago
@XxPacoimaxX i guess u look up to him than
apoctalyptoV 2 years ago
i'm torn between two and three.
two: provides absolute guarrantee of the rights of a gay couple. three does not.
three: provides freedom from beaurocratic quagmires over the interpretation of marriage's purpose.
fede2 2 years ago
Professor Sandel's argument is dim-witted rhetoric. There is no single purpose of marriage and no single benefit to society. There are, instead several. If gay marriage provides only one or two of these benefits, it still may be worthwhile.
He's basing his argument on archaic philosophy which has no business governing anyone's life today.
DrFagToYou 2 years ago
Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.
classicallady 2 years ago
"These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate. "
Hahahaha, so true!
If love is the reason for marriage nowadays (and I agree with this statement), there's no reason why same sex marriage should be forbidden. Just my opinion! :)
ambrocal 2 years ago 5
My reading is , there are so many "inside the closet" gays , they are absolutely fearful that, in case it is bradly allowed here - or other catholic countries - they will have no more reason to stay married withim the status quo.Human beings generally fear what they do not know....
classicallady 2 years ago 2
""These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate. "
One more thought! That is also because divorce is allowed nowadays.
No divorces in Ireland until 1995 for example, not to mention muslim countries.
When/where divorce is not allowed, some ppl rediscover the use of poison, lol!!
ambrocal 2 years ago 3
Muslim countries allow for divorce we are not catholics we are muslims. Divorce is normal and allowed. I know many muslims who are divorced.
at8933 2 years ago
I also know muslims who are divorced but not in muslim countries. You mean divorce is allowed in Iraq? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
ambrocal 2 years ago
Yes, yes, and yes. Divorce is permitted in islam and completely NORMAL. Iraq, Iran, and saudi are islamic countries and it is legal in all those countries.
at8933 2 years ago
Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match.
classicallady 2 years ago
with this theory we can have interspecies marriage or poligomy
michaelstanger 2 years ago
michael---polygamy is still being practiced in many countries. Some even force 10 yrs girls into pre-arranged marriages.
librophile 2 years ago 5
do you really get payed to do this?
this is scary if u read this this far u will die in 10 days if u dont send to any 15 videos in 2 hour
Noodl3lash 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is MY opinion and I am stating it.
I go with option 1.
Homosexuality is holding mankind back. Sure they can adopt children and raise them and I DO support adoption. But they if they marry someone of their same sex then they can't have kids of their own. I'm not including sperm banks, because that still wouldn't be both of Theirs. Think of it this way, if half of the world population was homosexuals, then the growing population would slow down by 50%.
CanadianToothPick 2 years ago
So then you would also have to demand that all couples must have children. Because childless couples are technically holding mankind back as well. Hell, why don't we make a law that demands everybody must get married and reproduce.
Gosh, not everyone is going to be gay so we don't worry about the world population running out. What's hurting mannkind is that there are still today so many inequal laws. What's hurting mankind is people who try to stand in the way of other's happiness.
xoswimgirlx41 2 years ago 2
yeah and maybe there wouldn't be so many orphans anymore.
Do you have any idea just how many orphans there are right know? Orphans that are known about?
And why is it so important that the child is (biological) of both of them? Loving your child or loving your parents has nothing to do with your DNA.
Also,I know a lot of straight couples who really shouldn't get children!
fentina 2 years ago 5
fentina, you're absolutely right on all points!
ambrocal 2 years ago
whether a gay person marries their partner on not- they don't biologically have kids together. Not giving people equal rights is holding mankind back
mpmcfam 2 years ago 4
It would actually bre extremely benefitial to mankind...OVERPOPULATION is one of the big reasons for poverty, global warming, lack of education and so forth..
classicallady 2 years ago 3
@classicallady overpopulation is a myth, the world might be be overpopulated year 5000, but the world is not overpopulated today. You blame "overpopulation" for poverty and lack of education. Can you prove it?
aargh5 1 year ago
A marriage honors love and assets.
Leonnidik 2 years ago
At the same time I don't think that two people of the same gender should get married in any religion similar to Christianity where marriage was invented so you knew which children were yours (more or less),there are a lot of religions (or sects) were people get married/bonded/whatever for LOVE (not saying christian couples don't,but in their religions history it used to be different and in my opinion if your religion needs to be updated to fit in in the modern world;it's a sucky religion.
fentina 2 years ago
all religion needs to be done away with. Dogma that is one person telling others how to think, believe and act. If anything this removes you from God. It certainl;y has no place in law. I live in Canada- everyone here is free to marry who they wish by law- it seems so backward that you have this arguement in the US- it's supposed to be a progressive country and it's being run by ignoramouses
mpmcfam 2 years ago 4
As far as I'm aware you can marry here (germany), you just can't do it in a church (if you're homosexual).I think that solution is not so bad especially since less and less people,gay or straight actually want to marry in a church.
But you're right,the US:people of more races and religions and sexual preferences (whether normal or sick) than anywhere else and they're so far behind... At least now they have a president who seems normal and intelligent...
fentina 2 years ago 11
Yes fentina, because this president is well traveled, cultivated, with a sophisticated intellect, high, above the average IQ unlike the past one...
classicallady 2 years ago 3
@fentina No offence, but you have no idea what normal means.
NihilNominis 10 months ago
@fentina its all perspective, no? what does it mean to be "behind"? what does "marriage" mean? does anal sex provide babies? does putting finger provide babies? what does anything mean? I only have questions. How old is the oldest man on earth? just because some people seem sure about what everything mean, does not mean you should be.
dkdjhh 6 months ago
I'm all for option 3 this guy mentions,marriage is a religious thing and has nothing to do with the state.
fentina 2 years ago
The worlds great religious traditions emphasize the love of neighbor as well as the love of God, and that compassion, justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people are the religious most authentic & noble expressions. (Copied from an amicus brief submitted to the California Surpreme Court in support of gay marriage) I just couldn't have said it better!
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
State has to recognize marriage because there are legal consecuences in this social act. If State shoudn´t recognize marriage at all, what about all the legal aspects that turns arrond this legal figure?
vicdrian1958 3 years ago
The state wouldn't recognize the word "marriage" instead it would recognize "civil unions" (with all the same legal aspects associated with marriage). The state would only conduct civil unions (for gay and straights), and only a religious institution could perform marriages.
Gay people could then get civil unions (with all the same right as heteros), and then get married in a gay friendly religious institution (no institution would be force to perform gay marriages).
EeyoreWhyBother 2 years ago
How to become a christian? click on Godisreal101
GodIsReal101 3 years ago
The state does need to recognise relationships in some way, for reasons of inheritance, tax and social security, paternity, distribution of shared assets given divorce, medical issues etc etc.
A lot of this is whether or not a gay couple have those same rights under the law. Its just a shame that its tied up with this quasi-religions 'marriage' idea- and it probably shouldnt be.
Saktoth 3 years ago
It would certainly be alot less confusing with religion out of the equation. But when it comes down to what you were talking about, marriage being a topic of government for legal and civil reasons, it also becomes a matter of right for the Church. Because most of what is involved in marriage is associated with the Church, and because the Church has defined marriage unto what it is today, it therefore plays a great role in its discussion, and cannot simply be cast aside.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The Church has already spoken on this issue. All across the country and across Europe there are churches and pastors and congregations who enthusiastically embrace gay marriage.
But marriage has two aspects. It has a religious aspect, but the date when a gay marriage begins has to be recorded by the government for all the same reasons that the date when a heterosexual marriage begins must be recorded.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
A Catholic priest is absolutely free to decline to marry two men who are in love and who have decided to make a lifelong commitment to one another. But he can't impose his religious beliefs on a pastor from a Protestant denomination across the street.
And opposing gay marriage DOES offend God and DOES, like so many other decisions the Vatican has made, HURT the image of the Catholic Church.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
They are two seperate institutions. And besides, the first US constitution ensures that the government 'shall make no laws regarding religion.'
The government needs laws of relationships for the purposes i outlined above, but this should be in no way associated with the religious concept of 'marriage'. To recognise a religious marriage is to have a law regarding religion.
Saktoth 3 years ago
No, because marriage has two different aspects.
It has a religious aspect. A gay couple can get married in a church today. There is nothing the government can do to stop a pastor from marrying two people.
But it also has a legal aspect. There is nothing a pastor or priest can do to stop the city clerk from granting a marriage license to a gay couple.
So there is absolute separation of church and state. The state doesn't control the church; the church doesn't control the state.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
So two men in California can get married before God today.
The problem is that bigots are continuing the campaign of harassment of homosexuals by trying to deny legal recognition in order to deny gay couples legal protections and in order to have one body of laws for gays and another body of laws for straights.
That's unconstitutional, no matter HOW many propositions get passed.
There is no separate but equal.
We have one set of laws for all Americans, not a different set for each group.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
What? Opposing gay marriage offends God??? How? Also, the image of the church doesn't matter. You seem to forget who is actually in control when it comes to the church.
XXXFirebird76XXX 3 years ago
I know it sounds harsh but God hates homophobes.
And who cares about the image of the Church? GOD does.
When pastors sin it sows doubt. A loving God becomes an angry God when pastors preach hate.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
God hates sin, which according to the bible, is what two men or two women having sex is (just as unmarried sex between a man and women is sinful).
God doesn't need man to give the Church a good image. God is in control.
Pastors sin all the time. They are not perfect like Jesus was. It is in their nature to sin.
God does not become angry at a pastor when he preaches the truth of the bible. God must hate sin in order to have righteous judgement.
XXXFirebird76XXX 3 years ago
I think you have it backwards.
Love is the ultimate virtue. Hate is the ultimate sin. Pastors who preach hate make God EXTREMELY angry because they turn Christians away from loving God.
It is not a sin for a man to fall in love with another man. It is certainly a sin for a man to hate another man purely because of his religion or race or nationality or his orientation.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
I think you might be confused with pastors preaching "hate", with pastors preaching what the bible teaches. With your definition "hate" would put Jesus in the same category that you are putting bible preaching pastors in.
You are correct, it is not a sin to love another man, but it is a sin for those two men to have sex.
XXXFirebird76XXX 3 years ago
Jesus never said, 'Hate thy gay neighbor'. What he said was 'Love Thy Neighbor' regardless or their orientation or any other excuse a Christian might come up with to hate.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
You are twisting God's words here. You are to love your neighber, which Christians do, but you are also supposed to spread the word of God, which is against two men having sex.
XXXFirebird76XXX 3 years ago
As you know, many Christians hate sex and many non-Christians hate sex. But sex is not a sin.
The sin Jesus speaks against THROUGHOUT the New Testament is the sin of hate.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
Matthew 7:1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
In order for a pastor to preach the truth of the Bible, he must first know the truth of the Bible. Easier said than done.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
It says in the Bible, and I quote "If a Bride is found not to be a Virgin, she is to be stoned to death," and it also says "Thou can not shed thy seed on the ground," If I am not mistaken, it also says "If adulterous activity is committed, both the man and the woman are to be stoned"
The Church's argument on this issue is that "These rules were made for a different type, and should be interpreted for today's moral standards,"
Then why, I ask you, can homosexuals not show love for another?
roboman499 2 years ago 3
If you open your eyes when you look in the Bible, you can find contradictions for EVERYTHING you just said. It may say "Thou shalt not sleep with a man as thy sleep with a woman," but why, I ask you once more, can we not interpret this for out own modern world?
I, for one, think homosexuality is a natural response to the stimulus of overpopulation. Homosexuals are not unnatural. Chimpanzees and Bonobos display this behavior in the wild, almost daily.
Perfectly natural, accept it.
roboman499 2 years ago 4
Homosexuality is by no means a natural response to anything.Animals are irrational creatures that do not know what homosexuality is.Animals also practice incest.Does that make it ok? Canibalism and disease are also responses to over population.Your arugment is very Ilogical especially when the fact is that the earth is no where close to being over populated
Groudie101 2 years ago
I suggest you get your fact staight.These rules were not changed,they were fulfilled.I repeat,the laws were not abandoned but fulfilled.Why is it that so many people just pick things out of the bible out of context? If I use your level of intellectual dishonesty I can justify any kind of wrong doing with the bible
Groudie101 2 years ago
Okay, sounds good.
Thank you kindly for the compliment.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Did the Vatican invent sex, too?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Gay men and lesbians don't have penile-vaginal sex (pardon my language), but they do something. What I argue is that it would be perverse to say that they aren't permitted to do that something when they fall in love.
It would also be cruel to say that they aren't allowed to get married once they've fallen in love, if they decide that they want to solemnize with marriage a lifelong commitment to one another.
Jesus welcomes everyone. I don't think he would turn away a gay couple at the door.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
I'm saying that the Vatican shouldn't be making people feel guilty about using birth control, since it's obvious that Italians use it quite effectively. (They're population is dropping.)
The Pope and President Bush shouldn't be blocking family planning efforts across the world, as they do.
People have to be able to be sexually active and married without necessarily having children.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
The Pope I have a respect for, because his job is directly applied to religion. However, despite being a Republican myself, cannot stand his preaching of religion with the government and the State's system. Religion should be left to the affairs of man in the Church, not in the White House. By even having a certain religion within the government they are contradicting a key point in the Constitution. Another reason why Church and State should be seperated.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago 2
Forcing anyone to be celibate forever would be absurd.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
But that option, whether to have sexual intercourse or not, is not given to homosexual couples, seeing as what they're doing isn't necessarily "intercourse". It is physical confrontation, maybe even sexual, but it is not intercourse. Therefore, could homosexuals even be/ not be celebate?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
White,
You're just playing language games.
Forcing anyone to go their entire lives without ever having what you prefer to call a "physical confrontation of a sexual nature" would be absurd.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I think you just have a particular vision of what marriage should be. You should impose that vision on yourself. But you can't impose that vision on everybody else.
If a couple falls in love and decides never to have children, there is no reason for them to practice lifelong celibacy, is there?
No. If they decide to make a lifelong commitment to one another, and their beliefs prohibit sex outside of marriage, they should be permitted to get married!
Regardless of their sexual orientation.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Yes, it my vision of the world. You have yours and I have mine. However, I am explaining my point of view, no attempting to impose it on anyone. There is a line that can be crossed where one goes from opinionated to tyrannical, and tries to impose the will of himself on others. I am far from that. It just seems that your opinion is the one in majority favor, in these times anyways.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
I think the world is a big place. Protestants should be able to practice Christianity anyway they want.
In the Episcopal Church, one openly gay priest has been named Bishop! He's going to do one of the invocations on day 2 of the Presidential Inaugural on Sunday.
I don't think there really ever was anything wrong with homosexual love, marriage, OR sex. Homophobia was just a mistake humanity made long ago and is just now getting around to correcting. Our ancestors weren't perfect.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
While I have nothing against Protestants personally, I don't see the point in having some many groups and sections to a perty that is supposed to be sanctioned together. There are Catholics, and there are Protestants. Except the Protestants have the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. What is the point of claiming a unified realm of religion when they are anything but unified?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Are you opposed to Protestantism?
It's been around for a while.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
And as for that last part, I could not disagree more. I won't go into technical terms of normalcy and how one would define "normal", but based on how a human being is supposed to function, there clearly is something wrong with homosexuality. It is likely to be a mutation of human genetics that has come into existence within our creation. One can see it almost anywhere, even though a probable fraction makes up the homosexual population, likely below a mere .0004%. I see it as clearly wrong.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
So being born homosexual is wrong.
Like being left-handed, or earning a PhD, or winning the Nobel Prize.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
You are free to engage in heterosexual marriage. Gay men and lesbians are free to engage in homosexual marriage.
Then no one is imposing their will on others.
PRECISELY what was wrong with Prop 8 in California was that it was an attempt by bigots to impose their will on others.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago 2
I think we should have separation of church and state and the government should get out of the marriage business . . .
and stop prohibiting gay marriage.
But they still have to record when the marriage begins.
Some pastors and congregations are passionately in favor of gay marriage. The religious freedom spelled out in the First Amendment dictates that government not interfere in those churches marrying gay couples.
Marriage licenses must be granted if we believe in Freedom.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I'm having trouble seeing what you're saying. The State should get out of deciding marriage, and in this stop prohibiting homosexual unionship? The State is the only reason there is any hope of such a thing. The Catholic Church has set strict guidelines for marriage. They have seemingly denied their unionship permanently. I think marriage should remain religious business, and by the look of it, by doing so homosexual marriage will not be happening anytime soon. Good enough for me.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
A Catholic church with a homophobic priest has no impact on the actions of a protestant church across the street that performs gay marriages every week.
Good enough for me.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
At the moment, the world is -over-populated. We should be encouraging people to have -fewer- children, not more.
(Unless they're Jewish. We need more Jews.)
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
While I agree that people need to cut down on having children, namely with India and China, that is not just cause to say focus should not be on procreation as the most important thing in our existence. It is about moderation, and usually poor nations are the culprit for the rampant productions.
However, I don't think someone can be born Jewish. Judaism is a religion. You can be born into a religion, but are not pre-destined by genetics. Jews can only be "created" through teaching/coversion.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Children is the most important thing. Procreation couldn't be less important. There is no urgency to increase the population anywhere except in Italy where all the Catholics are defying the Vatican, apparently, and using birth control.
But it doesn't make sense for the Vatican to be using local conditions to make bad policy decisions on an international scale.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
So children are the most important thing, just not through the means of procreation? How else are we supposed to make children, though cloning?
And what do you mean 'bad policy decisions'? I wouldn't exactly call the troubles of China and India 'local' for Italy, even if they're a few thousand miles closer than we are. And maybe a little dictation and restricting on how many children are born by some outside source is necessary. The Chinese/Indian governments certainly aren't prevailing.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Yes, children and procreation are not the same thing. I think we should be far more obsessed than we are with children and their welfare, and far less obsessed with procreation.
I think Christianity has always been too obsessed with sex.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
While I can see your point, I think the reason that sex is so big within religion is because that is how life is created with us, and there seems to be something spiritual about that.
Despite the enjoyment of this debate, as it is one of the best i have been part of in a while, and if it is all the same to you, would you mind we continue discussion another time? I'm dead tired and need my sleep.
Goodbye for now. -The White Suit
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
You still haven't really answered my question, though. Do you see anything wrong with two men falling in love?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Yes, I have answered you. SEVERAL TIMES. But for the sake of our arguement, yes, I do see much wrong with two men "falling in love". It defies the purpose of reproduction, the only clear purpose I can see for our existence as a species, and therefore I see as meaningless. You may go on to say that fertility and procreation aren't an issue, but that is the thing. It is the ONLY issue. Homosexuality brings, although is not defined by, the inability to reproduce through their pairings. What is the
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
point of even pairing up if you cannot reproduce in the first place. You can certainly argue that they may adopt, but so can hetero-sexual couples. Really, there isn't anything that a same-sex couple could accomplish that a heterosexual couple could not.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
There are many reasons that two people might want to get married and not have children.
Can't you think of them all yourself?
One perfectly good reason is in order to have sexual intercourse.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
So, get married to have sex? I'm not really sure that most people respect, or even contemplate, that sort of idea in these "modern" times.
I find it odd how the American culture seems to be slowly degenerating. In the 50s, culture was about science: making it to the moon, using atomic power and trying to prevent World War III. In these times, it is all about celebrities and "reality" TV. It is a shame to see our society degenerating into the cesspool that it is.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Yes, even if you are in love and have made a lifelong commitment, many Christians feel that it would be sinful to become intimate before getting married.
Do you disagree?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
To that note, I don't think I could respond with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
I do not think marriage is necessary to procreate, though I do believe the purpose of unionship is to raise a child that is born through procreation. You could certainly procreate before marriage.
I think that the discipline that many Christians have shown by not having intercourse until marriage should be respected, especially since many Christians no longer marry at very young ages, like 13, as was once practiced.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Procreation is the only issue . . . for people who are obsessed with procreation.
Most people aren't.
If two men got married and wanted children, they could have them, if they wanted. But we can't forbid anyone who is infertile or post-menopausal or who simply doesn't want to have children to get married. Can we?
Do you understand?
It's the Vatican's argument . . . but the Vatican isn't making a very good logical argument.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
So, who's talking about 'logic'? Certainly not you. Especially when you speak of 'love' as a dominant force driving people to unionship, instead of referring to it as the chemical combinants that prepair a person for intercourse. I am the logical one. You use emotion as foundation for your argument.
And it seems that you are basing your opinion of that of what is in the majority's eye. What is popular, not what is right or logical. Kind of juvenile, no?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
No.
I try to base my opinions on what's right.
Love is not just some silly thing. It is what Christianity is all about.
And it's a pretty good foundation for marriage, actually.
There should be a little logic when you choose whom to marry but emotion actually is the more important thing.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I think actually marriage is a Church matter -and- a government matter.
Government carefully records who is getting married and when, for vitally important legal purposes.
Then the couple goes to a church to get married before God and their families. Or they go wherever they want.
Churches make rules. Governments make laws. But no one can really stop two people from getting married. The core of marriage is love and commitment.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I like how you diagramed this. However, the matter changes when one entity, the two being Church and State, gains power over the other. The State has too much business in the affairs that pertain to the Church. It wouldn't be any more pleasant if the Church had a say in the matters of the governments, and I mean outside the political parties of course. I am vying for the separation of the Church and the State, to become two out of one, and for each opposite to only rule in their own matters.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
And even if the Church HAD invented marriage, which they didn't, that wouldn't give them ownership.
Edison invented the light bulb. His estate can't prevent you from manufacturing light bulbs. Can it?
If you patent something, the patent runs out after a few years. And then anyone can get married. Their monopoly on marriage ended centuries ago.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Here it seems you forget what we already have established. What a man creates, he can govern. So while he cannot claim what he has not developed with body and brain, he can most certainly do so with what he has.
Thomas Edison wished to share his device. It wasn't manditory he hand over his works. He wanted to show his invention to the world. Sure, it could be reproduced in great quantities, but under claimed ownership Edison would own the design and the creation itself.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
That's a silly argument.
People fall in love. They get married. They don't have to ask the Vatican for permission.
The Vatican doesn't own marriage. Res ipsa loquitur.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
It seems that we're simply running around in a circle. You say people fall in love, that love is the supreme force in the world, and that procreation has no say if matters of marriage. I retort the opposite, that love is merely science at work in the brain and that procreation is the only significant purpose in life. However, no matter how many times I explain the logic, you say that same exact thing back to me. 'People fall in love'. Now who's being silly?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The Church has the right to offer suggestions. No one is required to follow them. We already established that the Catholic Church didn't invent marriage because, as you pointed out, the word mariatare, to marry was invented before the Catholic Church even existed.
Infertile couples ARE allowed to get married, so infertility is not a relevant issue.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I pointed out? I said the word 'marriage' came from the Latin root 'mariatare', but the practice of what marriage is today, between any two given male and female citizens, is owned by the Church. As 'marriage' is defined today, that is what is owned by the Church. The word itself, as YOU pointed out, came before that time. But we are not speaking of the word now, but the practice.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The Vatican has the right to offer an opinion as to who should or should not get married, but non-Catholics aren't in anyway obligated to follow their suggestions.
Government, in fact, is required NOT to favor one person's religious beliefs over another.
As Catholics, gay Catholics have to make up their minds whether or not they should get married. I urge them to do it. God smiles on love, even if the Vatican doesn't.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Well of course the Church as the right to offer an opinion, especially since they are directly tied to the matter. And it isn't as if non-Catholics would even regard the opinion of the Church, let it be positive or not.
My whole argument is founded on the idea that the government should not have a say in the matters of the Church, therefore denying the State to govern marriage. You keep repeating what is already clear, that the State does not and cannot hold bias toward who can marry.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
So what you are saying is that all homosexuals have the right to get married . . . unless they're Catholic.
Is that right?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago