Anyway, the individual who originally sent me the Hitler/Obama email took me to task over the above argument and for my "endorsement" of the homosexual lifestyle. Since this is such a contentious issue - one that most Christians are wrong about - I thought I'd give it some attention, perhaps show my fellow believers that you can disagree with people's choices and not use the state to bludgeon them into cooperation.
My view of marriage in religious terms is rather orthodox. I don't think we need to reinterpret the Biblical passages that deal with homosexuality; it's pretty clear that the Bible condemns the practice, see here for example. That being said, I have no desire to tell homosexuals whom they can marry, or anybody else for that matter. There should be no laws restricting what kinds of agreements consenting adults can make with each other, provided they harm no one else. And when you think about it, that's where all the disagreement arises. The government has granted a special status to married couples and denied the opportunity to marry to a segment of the population. Just privatize the whole institution and call it day. I have yet to find a decent rebuttal to that position, and my political sparring partner didn't offer one, though he gave it his best. Take a look and tell me what you think.
Hopefully, it would be none-of-the-governments business about what one does in the privacy of their own home. Let Fred love Ed, Milany love Mary, Bobby have sex with his sister, MANBLA can have a coterie of young boys, and why not a young woman make some money off the use of her body, you know, to pay her college tuition, car payment, etc.? Its none of the damn governments business what one does in the privacy of their own home, stay in the closet, right?Basically - though my standard was consenting adults entering into voluntary contracts. A relationship between an adult and a child obviously doesn't fit. Otherwise, I don't much care. Furthermore, as we've seen with other forms of prohibition, drug and alcohol laws for example, criminalizing an activity doesn't necessarily reduce it. So if your concern is that these degenerate behaviors left unabated will destroy society, I want some evidence that legal restrictions will have some positive effect. By the way, restating my argument as a rhetorical question isn't a refutation of any kind.
Hey, moral standards are like the Bible; you should get to pick and choose cafeteria style those that you like and ignore the one's you don't. So, yes, to maintain civil order, coerce standards of public conduct and public health, a government of the people must apply standards of personal conduct.I didn't say you could pick and choose Christian morality, only that legislating it isn't always necessary. There are no laws condemning those who refuse to honor their parents, yet I never hear any calamitous cries from the Christian Right about it. And I still see no justification for coercion in this case. How is civil order disrupted by granting people the privilege to marry?
...as you can see all around you, especially in elementary and secondary education, GBLT acceptance have become endemic. Within a couple of generations we'll become a purely bisexual society and God only knows what other depravity will prevail.And you thought the blog title was hyperbolic.
God defined the marriage arrangement, and if we change that, condone a type of marriage that was not to be, then we are saying that we know better then God, and you know the result of that. But, if one is an atheist then its purely academic.Oh, yes, the "you're defying God's will and just asking for his wrath to be poured out on thee" argument. As I said, it's not a matter of ignoring Christian morality, but deciding what needs to be made into public policy. God condemns many things people do. But society need only be concerned with the choices that harm others. In closing, I'm just going to plagiarize my last entry and recommend that you eat another delicious sandwich and chill out even more. Really, Christians have a lot to defend already. For what purpose should we hold on to pointless, restrictive marriage laws? EDIT: Coincidentally, John Stossel just carpet bombed the misplaced fear of gay marriage.