Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[Jepne]

My ideas are 'so' not the way you were thinking. I am not all peace, love and grooviness. I am not a hippy. I have not dropped LSD. I do believe there is right and wrong. I don't believe in free-love.

Sure, you may have not done the hippy thing, but you seemed to indicate that loving and being in love are the same thing which sounds like the confusion we hippies were in at that time, and many non-hippies as well.

It is radical. If I hold a high view of scripture and re-examine a text and belief, the conclusion I come to is risky, because I will be held accountable by God for that belief,

Yes, it's radical; we were radical too, and, as Christians, we still are, for that matter; we all take risks with our interpretations of scripture and have been encouraged to not discount any idea that the Lord may or may not have put in our heads, but check it out, pray about it, submit it to friends (forums - which you have done) and elders, and, most important when it comes to behavior, using the imagination, take it to its conclusion, which is what I tried to show by asking some questions:

What would it be like for you and your family if your wife one day told you that she loved another woman?
Well, of course she loves women.
No, but that she is IN LOVE with another woman.
IN LOVE with means wants to become one with, have sex with. Spend all her time with.
OK, it would be upsetting if she was in love with another man, too.

Then, there's this one: say you have a close male friend and one day he says I love you.
You say, well, of course, I love you too.
No, he says 'I am in love with you, I want to have sex with you."

Would that be natural, normal and lovely to you, and bring peace to you and your family?

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I've avoided the discussion because I have two different opinions on the matter. But since the issue of "philisophical" opinion has been tossed in, I'll offer the following, for what it's worth.

Part of the problem seems to be the need to use the courts to define for all of society what should be viewed as normal or acceptable. I do not believe that we can have a philisophical discussion based upon legal premises. For instance, it seems intersting to me that the same crowd that decried this meaningless "piece of paper" (a marriage certificate) is the same crowd most vociferous in trying to get this meaningless piece of paper signed by two men or two women. And I think this drive in itself underscores something that proponents don't want to acknowledge, and that is that there is an inherent difference between an opposite sex union and a same sex union; and that it is only by legal means and the point of a gun that they can make the two relationships "appear" equal, and thus foist a "philisophical" opinion on all of society.

This view was undersored locally in our Voter's Pamphlet when the measure came up for vote. It passed (gay marriage) by a narrow margin, but our State already had a comprimise law called "Everything but Marriage". And that meant that a gay monogomous couple could get all of the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. In the Voter's Pamphlet For and Against Statements, this fact was appealed to by the "against" side, the fact we had an "everything but marriage" law on the books already. In the "Rebuttal" argument, the pro gay marriage side opened it's argument with: "Every parent dreams of walking their child down the aisle to a marriage, not to a civil union". Right there is the admission that what is really desired is for the State to force a philisophical view on it's citizens. It has nothing to do with rights and benefits. And by having legal recourse, a "philosphical" view of gay unions can be forced on others through fear of legal reprisal.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

For instance, it seems intersting to me that the same crowd that decried this meaningless "piece of paper" (a marriage certificate) is the same crowd most vociferous in trying to get this meaningless piece of paper signed by two men or two women.

That's an interesting observation, Brenden. Of course there are exceptions, myself being one of them. I consider a marriage between a man and a woman to be defined by a life-long commitment before God, and that a public wedding is desirable in order to announce the marriage which has already taken place, and that a legal marriage is unnecessary; there were no such things in the early days of the last millenium. And I have no desire to promote same-sex "marriage"—legal or otherwise.

However, I would not object if government benefits presently for legally married people were to extend to persons who are not legally married (or who may not be married in any sense) and who live in the same household, whether their relationship is sexual or non-sexual.

[Tychicus]

However, I would not object if government benefits presently for legally married people were to extend to persons who are not legally married (or who may not be married in any sense) and who live in the same household, whether their relationship is sexual or non-sexual.

How about the benefit the have a child at a reasonable cost?

After all, the fact that male-female married couples usually get their children free (besides medical expenses) seems inherently discriminatory against legally married same sex couples, who always have significant additional expenses. Would you support government benefits to make up the extra cost, perhaps by requiring insurance companies to cover the cost of having a child, including all extra costs for same sex couples?

[morbo3000]

Jepne said:

What would it be like for you and your family if your wife one day told you that she loved another woman?
Well, of course she loves women.
No, but that she is IN LOVE with another woman.
IN LOVE with means wants to become one with, have sex with. Spend all her time with.
OK, it would be upsetting if she was in love with another man, too.

Then, there's this one: say you have a close male friend and one day he says I love you.
You say, well, of course, I love you too.
No, he says 'I am in love with you, I want to have sex with you."

The discussion is about monogamous couples making a life-long covenant with each other. What you are describing is open marriage against the wishes of one of the spouses which has nothing to do with covenanted relationship. You might as well be saying "...well, what if Richard Nixon were alive today, and wanted to date your daughter.. would you still think gay marriage is ok?" It's that absurd.

Also, you are hijacking the word "love." When I say "my friend is in love with his boyfriend, and wants to get married," you are saying that somehow that "love" is not the same as your "correct" definition of "love." I've seen people do this before. You might be wanting to say that because homosexuality is a sin, then the love isn't legitimate because you call it "selfish?" But I can tell you that my friend is ready to sacrifice himself for his boyfriend/fiance just as much as I am my wife. It's fine to say that his "love" isn't the way you would say "love" is. But you don't get to say that it isn't love.

We can go round and round on this. But you do not get to tell my friend that his love for his fiancé is any different than my love for my wife. You aren't qualified because you don't have a relationship with him.

[morbo3000]

Brenden said:

Part of the problem seems to be the need to use the courts to define for all of society what should be viewed as normal or acceptable.

I believe this is a civil rights issue. Which is exactly why the courts need to decide. Referendums allow issues to be decided based on what a majority will vote for. But it is the responsibility of courts to weigh issues against our constitution, bill of rights, and other laws of the land. When I speak of the courts, I am not talking about being litigious and suing McDonald's over coffee that is too hot. I'm talking about issues that rightly belong in the courts to decide what is in keeping with the laws of our democracy. This is why these issues wind up going up to the Supreme Court. The court has to decide what is legal, not what is popular.

...the same crowd that decried this meaningless "piece of paper" (a marriage certificate) is the same crowd most vociferous in trying to get this meaningless piece of paper signed by two men or two women.

My friend does not think that it is a meaningless piece of paper. He never has. I don't know what crowd you are talking about. I don't know anyone from that crowd. None of my gay friends belong to that crowd.

And I think this drive in itself underscores something that proponents don't want to acknowledge, and that is that there is an inherent difference between an opposite sex union and a same sex union; and that it is only by legal means and the point of a gun that they can make the two relationships "appear" equal, and thus foist a "philisophical" opinion on all of society.

It is not "the point of a gun" for courts to decide that something is constitutional or unconstitutional. Or that something upholds the bill of rights.

And again.. none of my gay or straight friends thinks that there is an inherent difference between opposite sex and same sex union.

"Every parent dreams of walking their child down the aisle to a marriage, not to a civil union". Right there is the admission that what is really desired is for the State to force a philisophical view on it's citizens. It has nothing to do with rights and benefits. And by having legal recourse, a "philosphical" view of gay unions can be forced on others through fear of legal reprisal.

How in the world is that forcing a philosophical view? If my son or daughter falls in love with someone of the same sex and wants to walk down the aisle to make a life-long covenant with each other, they are imitating the covenant I made with my wife 25 years ago. Their love is no different than my daughter with her husband. And the covenant is no different. Which was a marriage. They are getting married.

[morbo3000]

Since this has gone in a few different directions, I want to make a few distinctions.

First, these are two different discussions about
- whether or not gay marriage will be legally recognized as such by our governments.
- whether monogamous, life-long covenants between a same-sex couple that involves sex is a sin.

I have made my case in a previous discussion regarding the scriptures on the subject.

This conversation has been involving the former. And I maintain that the courts, and referendums are the only place those decisions can be made. It is not being litigious to ask the courts to decide on a subject. That is what democracy is.

Second, there seems to be a lot of comparison to post-60's liberalism. And a characterization that same-sex couples are trying to legitimize their perversion. My gay friend is not wanting to legalize sex in a public place. He simply has a relationship with another man that parallels the definition our culture has of marriage, and wants it recognized as such. This isn't a conservative/liberal discussion. It is a legal question.

What sucks for those against marriage equality is that it is refining (not redefining) a traditional understanding that has previously been legitimized by the courts. And those refinements are going in favor of marriage equality. But fortunately for all of us, tradition is not what defines our rights as citizens.

[morbo3000]

- [Anyone, religious or non-religious] can see that people come in two kinds, male and female, and that one of each forms a natural pair, a complete representation of humankind. If nothing else, they can see that a new life can come forth from that kind of relationship.

What is fallacious about this "argument"? It's actually just an observation, which I think most people will agree is true. But whatever you think it is, what is the fallacy?

"An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

It is a fallacy because homosexual and asexual behavior are not unnatural.

In a previous discussion, Homer wrote:

In Romans 1:18-32 Paul assigns a particular reason regarding why homosexual acts are wrong. They are unnatural, just as beastiality is unnatural. The male and female bodies were designed to complement one another.

But God's nature seems to have some pretty peculiar sex behaviors. Compatibility of genitals does not seem to be one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sex ... iour#Sheep

In fact, in God's nature, genital union isn't always necessary for reproduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_r ... in_animals

Someone replied:

Do we not live in a fallen world, and since when would we imitate animals? Seems to me that we have a moral capacity that the animals do not have.

But in Romans 1:26 Paul is arguing from nature, fallen or not. That women's "shameful lusts" is exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The problem is that heterosexuality is not the only natural sexual relation.

So, appeal to nature is a fallacious argument against monogamous, committed same-sex couples who engage in sex. Because homosexual behavior is not unnatural.

(Of course.. if genital compatibility is not what is unnatural, then what is Paul speaking about? Now _that's_ a good question.)

[Tychicus]

Hi Morbo,

Hey, I appreciate your hard work giving answers to so many people, and your willingness to stand up for the minority view (on this site).

Nevertheless I think this response is totally irrelevant:

- [Anyone, religious or non-religious] can see that people come in two kinds, male and female, and that one of each forms a natural pair, a complete representation of humankind. If nothing else, they can see that a new life can come forth from that kind of relationship.

What is fallacious about this "argument"? It's actually just an observation, which I think most people will agree is true. But whatever you think it is, what is the fallacy?

"An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Where did I argue that "a thing is good because it is 'natural'"? That link does not remotely address the point I made. It appears you are trying to refute my "argument" by calling it a name rather than by giving a logical response.

Typically people who support traditional marriage want to focus on children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations. People who support same sex marriage typically want to focus on civil rights and anti-discrimination.

For the sake of argument, assume the entire US allows civil unions giving full civil rights and guaranteeing the same benefits as married couples for things like hospital visits, insurance, inheritance, etc. If these issues were taken care of, then which would be more important in determining where "marriage" goes?

1) Ensuring the well being of children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations.

2) Ensuring same sex couples are treated exactly the same as heterosexual married couples.

In your mind, which of these two ought we to be thinking hardest about?

[Tychicus]

But in Romans 1:26 Paul is arguing from nature, fallen or not. That women's "shameful lusts" is exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The problem is that heterosexuality is not the only natural sexual relation.

So, appeal to nature is a fallacious argument against monogamous, committed same-sex couples who engage in sex. Because homosexual behavior is not unnatural.

Are you seriously arguing that Paul is railing here against lesbians engaging in heterosexual activity?