The rift in the Methodist church is interesting to watch. This isn't just
"fringe" pastors agitating for change.The former Bishop for
Northern California -- a past president of the National Council of Churches --
Melvin Talbert, has urged pastors to defy this church law, and has performed at
least one same-sex marriage himself. Talbert has said: "Weddings
are going on all the time, all across the church, but it's privately done,
and bishops are just looking the other way, and it's time for someone to
say, 'Let's deal with the elephant in the room.' "He also said: "I declare to you that the derogatory language and
restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer
deserve our loyalty and obedience."More than 1000 ministers have
signed on to Talbert's call to action.Rev. Frank Schaefer, the
pastor who is about to go on trial, has said of his son: "After years of
affirming him and standing by him through his struggles over sexual identity, to
refuse to perform the wedding would have negated everything I told him, which
was that you were created by God the way you turned out."
Interesting....3 out of the 4 kids of the pastor mentioned in this story are
homosexual. Are genetics responsible for that or an accepting home environment?
I tend to lean towards a home environment being the cause.
Good for this Methodist minister. It's time people woke up and realized
that it is not Christian to judge someone for they way they were born.@Commodore: Let me get this straight: People actually believe that an
"accepting home environment" is responsible for a child being gay?
The church has the right to do that, good for them.
3 out of 4 would definitely show some element of "choice" is involved in
being gay. I think at least some percentage of people in this group do so
purely out of personal choice. The percentate is even higher if you include the
people who openly identify themselves as bi sexual. For them, anything is
Good for the church. It will take a lot of courage to stand up against the
invasion of homosexual "acceptance."
Commodore:Back Talk:Your inference that either this is the
choice of "some" or due to the home environment is not sustainable.In the first place that vast majority of homosexuals do not come from an
"accepting" home environment. In the second place for those that are
great parents and do create an accepting home environment the majority of their
children are not homosexual.The last stand of those against equal
rights for homosexuals is that it is a lifestyle choice and/or a sin. It has now
long since been disproved that it is a lifestyle choice. Subsequently it is not
an act of choice and can not be a sin.
@CommodoreWhat makes you so sure it is because "an accepting
home environment", not because the three brothers have similar genes?
ChrisB: Yes the church has the right to do that. But that right does not make it
the right thing to do. All churches have made poor decisions throughout their
histories. Denying equal rights to certain groups of people is only one of many.
Rectifying those poor decisions is always extremely difficult for a church. What
is more difficult is a church showing repentance after correcting its mistakes.
Study your history.
@Back Talk, I agree. I think homosexuality has almost become a sort of fad
lately. Given the amount of attention that homosexuals get whenever they do
something these days, I think many people choose to live that lifestyle out of
desired attention. Also, I found it interesting going around the
news this past week was the story of a lesbian waitress who was given no tip but
instead a note was left saying the patrons couldn't support her lifestyle.
What was interesting was the waitress never told the family she was a lesbian,
and yet she claims a tip wasn't left because she is gay. The comment was
only that the family couldn't support her lifestyle, it didn't say
anything about her being gay. And we're constantly told by those who
support BLTG people that its impossible to tell someones sexuality by how they
dress, act, or cut their hair. So how could this family has possibly known
she was a lesbian?Point is, I think people do things to get
attention and I think gays often do dress/act in a way to ensure everyone knows
they are gay. Its an attention thing often.
There's talk here about gay being a personal choice somehow, the goal being
that defining it as a choice means that it can be modified by coercion or force,
both of which religion is comfortable with. I just don't see it as a
choice. Even today, and almost everywhere, being gay is to be abused and
discriminated against. Sometimes in the most horrible ways. I can't imagine
anyone choosing that.
And we're surprised by this? We are living in the last days, folks. Expect
even more debauchery and evil from here on out. This day has been prophesied for
millenia, and we are seeing prohesy unfold right before our very eyes. See 2
Timothy 3:1-7 for an insight of what we are dealing with from a religious
@michaelsuperman,Your cries of equal rights don't hold much
water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists to be able to marry,
as well as 2 brothers who wish to be married. Come back when you truly support
equal rights for all and I'll listen. Until then, you're still
picking and choosing like everyone else.
Chris B: I would agree some BLTG's do things to get attention. And?? So do
a heckofa lot of other people. Everyone has different personal styles. Some
BLTG's like to dress flamboyantly, some do not. I know a lot of straight
people that dress in ways I would consider flamboyant. That's fine for
them. Some BLTG's are doing it to get attention for their cause.
That's fine also. Finding ways of bringing attention to a cause is one of
the most common things there is.The main reason many BLTG's are
bringing this to the forefront now is because there is change happening and that
is how change happens. Same as all other civil rights changes in this
country.The point is... they deserve equal rights the same as the
rest of us do. They are well on the way of receiving them. And a lot of the
reason is... they bring attention to the mistreatment they have endured.
Chris B: Why yes I am "picking and choosing", never said I wasn't.
There is a definite difference between to gays marrying and two brothers
marrying. The same as there is a difference between an adult and a minor being
married. The same as there is a Difference between an adult and an animal
marrying. Jumping from equal rights for gays to "anything
goes" is another attempt to confuse the issue. Because you are for one does
not mean you are for all. That is the same argument used in the past to restrict
non same races being able to marry or non same religions to be able to marry.
@Chris B:1) Polygamists are already allowed to marry the (first)
person of their choice. We're fighting to be able to do even that much, we
can worry about those who want extra marriages once we cross this first
bridge.2) When did you choose to be straight? Have you any idea how
much time and energy most of us spent simply trying to change to straight?
Enormous amounts of energy, all to no avail - it is NOT a choice.3)
I don't really care what your religions do, as long as they stop
interfering in the lives of people who do not belong to their organizations.
Until that ends, there is going to be a fight.@Filthy Kuffar;Your "prophetic" fantasies are fiction. Nothing more. As for
"decadent", why don't you look at how the religious leaders are
living lives of luxury; now there's some real decadence.
@Chris B --"people do things to get attention..."Oh, sure.All those gay kids living out on the streets because
their parents threw them out -- just did it for the attention.All
those gay men and women getting bashed and even killed every day just for being
gay -- just did it for the attention.All those gay men and women
getting fired, and not getting hired, every day just for being gay -- just did
it for the attention.All those gay couples being denied equal
marriage rights just for being gay -- just did it for the attention.Riiiiiiiiiiight."What was interesting was the waitress never
told the family she was a lesbian, and yet she claims a tip wasn't left
because she is gay."This waitress -- a former Marine, btw --
initially shocked her customers because she has short hair, which the wife
specifically commented on.Another waiter at a different restaurant
was left a non-tipping note reading (edited for DN): ""We hope you will
see the tip your (gay) choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly,"
"It is never too late for GOD’S love, but none shall be spared for
michaelsuperman,You're using the same argument used in the past
to restrict non same races or non same religions from marrying for polygamists
or brothers not being able to marry. Why is the love between polygamists or two
brothers any less real than between two gay men?
@Chris B --"Your cries of equal rights don't hold much
water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists to be able to
marry"Here we go again.TWO facts are necessary in
order to justify the legalization of gay marriage:1. Marriage is a
civil right;AND2. Gay marriage in particular does not
cause a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of
marriage.Now, marriage in general clearly IS a civil right, as
established by the US Constitution and reaffirmed by multiple SCOTUS
decisions.AND nobody has ever been able to show that gay marriage
causes a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.In stark
contrast, polygamy is very well known to convey a significantly increased risk
of harm to women and children in particular.Therefore, polygamy
fails to qualify under the harm principle. The harm principle is a
universal legal principle that is very often used to limit our rights and
freedoms. For instance, we have no "right" to drive drunk, because
drunken driving significantly increases the risk of harm to others. Similarly, polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm. Therefore
our government has an interest in continuing to ban it.
Contarius,But I thought it was impossible for people to know others
sexuality based on how they act, dress, talk, and cut their hair? Gays
don't shove their sexuality in others faces and don't dress/cut their
hair in a certain way in order to flaunt their life choices. That's what we hear all the time. So how did the family know
she was a lesbian?
Realistically the Pastors' superiors should have first reaffirmed to him
that to perform the ceremony was against Church Law. Then followed up by
verifying that he did indeed perform the ceremony anyway. At that point they
should have brought charges against him. That's what should have occurred
but did not. As to the situation of the person being homosexual, I
don't know of any Christian church that believes it's a sin to be
homosexual. Most however believe that engaging in sex with someone of the same
gender is a sin and is to be avoided just like any other sin.
@Contragion,Fellow bltg supporter michalesuperman disagrees with
you: "Chris B: I would agree some BLTG's do things to get
attention. And?? So do a heckofa lot of other people. Everyone has different
personal styles. Some BLTG's like to dress flamboyantly, some do
not."MichaelSuperman,What straight people DONT do is
dress in a certain way to try and ensure everyone knows they are straight. Its
not about getting attention, but drawing attention to one's life choices of
sexuality that is seen as shoving a lifestyle in others faces. Again, there are
certainly straight people who want to get attention, but don't try and draw
attention to the sexuality. No straight person ever chooses
clothing or wears their hair in such a way for the sole purpose of make sure
everyone else knows they are straight. Gays do.If they didn't,
I ask again: How did the family at the restaurant know the woman was
@Filthy Kuffer"Expect even more debauchery and evil from here on out.
"The funny thing is, same-sex marriage involves two people
wanted to make lifelong commitments to each other. Would you rather they not get
married and forget that whole wanting to make commitments thing, just sleep
around with whoever?@Chris B"Your cries of equal rights
don't hold much water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists
to be able to marry, as well as 2 brothers who wish to be married."Your cries of limiting rights don't hold much water unless you start
fighting to ban interracial marriage (see, you're not the only one who can
make strawman arguments).
@Chris B"Why is the love between polygamists or two brothers any less
real than between two gay men?"Well there's no logical
reason why sleeping around should be legal while polygamy is illegal. The funny
thing is same-sex siblings don't have the issue normally raised against
Three of his four children are gay? Yikes! I hope they don't reprimand him
too much - he was trying to be there for his son. That's a tough choice to
@ContrariusiestYou stated: "polygamy is very well known to
convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in
particular" Really? What harm is "really well known"? I am
guessing you can't come up with any examples specific to polygamy that
couldn't also occur in gay or straight marriages. If it can occur in
straight or gay marriages, then you cannot use the "significant harm"
theory against polygamists either.AND, I am fairly certain the
"significant harm" to children and others was once used against gay
marriage as well, but it is "not PC" to make those arguments anymore, so
no one accepts them. My guess is that it will soon "not be PC" to claim
polygamy, relative marrying relative, or adult marrying children causes harm
either. (Don't believe me? Google the issue that was created under the
current APA DSM V mess that decided pedophilia was no longer a disorder)
@Christopher B --"But I thought it was impossible for people to
know... "Sorry, Chris, but I'm not responsible for your
thoughts.Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it isn't. In
the same way, sometimes it's possible to tell that a person's
Republican -- and sometimes it isn't.There are a few very
interesting recent studies on ID'ing gay men by facial features. I'll
be happy to post refs, if you're interested. But I warn you -- they argue
pretty darned strongly against that "gay by choice" theory of yours."Gays don't shove their sexuality in others faces..."Not any more than anyone else does. Does your own dress and
hairstyle "flaunt" your life choices? Sure it does. Does my own fondness
for tie-dye "flaunt" my life choices? Sure."michalesuperman disagrees with you: "No he doesn't.
He actually agrees with me that some people of ALL persuasions do some things
for attention. That is not at all the same as claiming that people BECOME gay
for attention."What straight people DONT do is dress in a
certain way..."Of course they do. Not all, of course, but just
as many as the reverse.
@Fred Vader --"What harm...?"I can provide quite
a few specific studies, if you're interested. In the meantime,
a few relevant quotes:1. UN Report of the Human Rights Committee --
polygamy is "a practice which is an affront to women’s dignity and is
incompatible with the Covenant" and "highly detrimental to women's
rights"2. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights -- "Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible
discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished
wherever it continues to exist."3. Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an
elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of
domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" . "If
it can occur in straight or gay marriages, then you cannot use the
"significant harm" theory against polygamists..."Of
course we can.Automobile accidents can occur whether a driver is
drunk or sober. Nonetheless, drunk driving is illegal because there's a
much HIGHER risk of accidents when drunk.Similarly, abuse can occur
whether in monogamous or polygamous marriages. Nonetheless, polygamy is illegal
because there's a much HIGHER risk of abuse in polygamous marriages.
"An affront to women's dignity" is all you have? Isn't that
supposed "significant risk of harm" highly subjective? The same
argument could be made about gay marriage as well.However, I'm
guessing if you polled the polygamist females in and around Utah, you would find
it doesn't "affront their dignity" at all. But they don't get
to make that decision because they are not a part of the UN? So it causes harm
because it is PC (likely from feminists in the UN) to say so.If the
UN decided gay marriage was an affront to someone's dignity, then you would
be ok with not allowing gay marriage?Again, you haven't shown
there is any actual harm, let alone "much HIGHER" risk, other than
someone's subjective opinion that it causes harm to their
"dignity". But I get it, it is not currenly the PC trend...but it soon
@Fred Vader --""An affront to women's dignity" is
all you have?"Nope. 200-word limits, remember?Here's just a few studies and reports for you:International
Journal of Social Psychiatry: "A Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and
Marital Satisfaction, and Mental Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous
Marriages" Canadian Department of Justice: "Polygyny as a
Violation of Human Rights Law"Status of Women Canada:
"Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and
Children" (this one is nearly 300 pages -- great resource!)Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs: “Behavioral Problems
and Scholastic Adjustment among Bedouin-Arab Children from Polygamous and
Monogamous Family Structures: Some Developmental Considerations.” Transcultural Psychiatry: "Women from Polygamous and Monogamous
Marriages in an Out-Patient Psychiatric Clinic."Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage: "Wife Abuse among Polygamous and Monogamous
Bedouin-Arab Families.” Journal of Social Psychology:
"Mental Health Aspects of Arab-Israeli Adolescents from Polygamous Versus
Monogamous Families.”There's a TON more out there, if
you're interested.In contrast, attorneys in many court cases --
both across this country and in other countries -- have spectacularly failed to
prove ANY significant increase in risk of harm from gay marriages. Guess why.
Ranch,"1) Polygamists are already allowed to marry the (first)
person of their choice"And gays are already allowed to marry the
(opposite gender) person of their choice.If they don't want to?
Well, a polygamist doesn't want to marry just one. Denying them the
ability to marry that second person they love just as much as a gay loves his
partner, is no different.
alt134,Clever reply, but like most liberal responses, fall short of
logic. "Your cries of limiting rights don't hold much
water unless you start fighting to ban interracial marriage "Those against gay marriage aren't being self righteous and hypocritical
in their behavior by pretending to be accepting to all, as those who support gay
marriage do. So its a far claim to call those out who support
"equality" and "anti-discrimination" policies. Do you support
equality for all, or not? If the claim that the love between two gay people is
just as valid as a heterosexual couple, be prepared to answer why the love
between 3 people or siblings isnt' just as valid.
@Contrariusester:You said, "There's a TON more out there,
if you're interested" Yep, you need to supply them, because what you
have produced above is nothing more than the subjective opinions you produced
before. (Probably thought I wouldn't read them.)The majority
of your sources were studies of Arab polygamy/religious relationships. Most of
the reported "significant harm" comes from the religious beliefs of the
Arab participants, not the polygamy.One of your "Canadian"
sources said the "harm" was caused by depression that came from being a
polygamous wife. Guess what? I know plenty of gay marriages where one of the
partners has depression too. Guess that means "gay marriage" causes
"significant harm" too...That "Canadian" source also
said the sexual "harm" being caused by these Arab polygamous
relationships were the result of the spread of AIDS from one wife to husband to
another wife. The spread of AIDS among gays is also high, so gay marriage would
have a "HIGHER incidence of harm" as well.Like I said, there
are no arguments against polygamy, that can't also be used against gay
marriage. Only difference is one is PC and the other isn't.
@KenA husband with 4 wives and a wife who has to share her husband
with 3 other women, these two people are simply not equal in such an
@Ken --"Denying them the ability to marry that second person
they love just as much as a gay loves his partner, is no different."Harm is the difference."prepared to answer why the love
between 3 people or siblings isnt' just as valid."That's already been answered -- many times.Polygamy and
incest convey greatly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of
marriage.Gay marriage does not.
@J.S. And I suppose you think children with siblings are somehow not equal to
only-child households, as the children with siblings must share their parents?
@KenAnd you suppose to understand parent-child relation and
spouse-spouse relation are two different things
I support the ban on polygamists marrying their computers, and filling up these
threads with nonsense.If you have a Gay child (not so rare in big
mormon families), could you really tell him or her to make a choice between
living as a second class citizen, or leave the church and marry?Meanwhile -- SO disappointing to see some of the other comments. And nonsense like this:"But I thought it was impossible for people
to know others sexuality based on how they act, dress, talk, and cut their hair?
Gays don't shove their sexuality in others faces and don't dress/cut
their hair in a certain way in order to flaunt their life choices.".... Some people feel the need to express themselves a certain way for
THEMSELVES. The waitress was a somewhat butch US Marine, for instance, and would
look stupid in a dress.Most Gay people "look regular", but some
are called to express themselves differently.Do we have "freedom
of expression, as long as I approve of you" in the the United States?If that were true, mormon missionaries knocking on doors would have a
For as long as I can remember, the federal government has given people discounts
on their taxes for being married. The churches are fighting a losing battle when
they try to keep homosexuals from becoming eligible for the same tax discounts
as everyone else.
"You'll give an account for that at the last day," Christopher
Fisher told the jury in urging them to convict a good and loving pastor. Well, Christopher, "you'll give an account for that at the last
day," as well.So much for the United Methodist Church claiming to be
progrssive. It's as anachronistic as ever. And now everyone knows it.
Ken says:"Ranch,"And gays are already allowed to
marry the (opposite gender) person of their choice.:Dear Ken;What didn't you understand about the word "Choice"?
This seems to be a very interesting but unfruitful discussion in this comments
section. From my point of view this is not about denying or giving anyone one
rights. I can't marry a someone of my same gender either. The idea here is
universal recognition of something being moral and good. No amount of discussion
will change whether or not homosexual behavior is moral. None of us have the
right to change another's moral principles.
@Fred Vader --"nothing more than the subjective opinions...
"Baloney. There's a huge difference between "subjective
opinions" and the peer-reviewed scientific research I've referenced."(Probably thought I wouldn't read them.)"I
know for a fact that you didn't read them completely -- since the two
Canadian reports alone total more than 400 pages. ;-)"Most of
the reported "significant harm" comes from the religious beliefs of the
Arab participants..."Nope.If you HAD actually read
these studies, you'd already realize that these were *controlled* studies.
They compared polygamous families to monogamous families IN THE SAME CULTURES.
All the families had the same religious and cultural beliefs."One of your "Canadian" sources said the "harm" was caused
by depression that came from being a polygamous wife. "Remember
-- 400 pages. They said MUCH MUCH more than that. ;-)"gay
marriage would have a "HIGHER incidence of harm" as well."Nope.Remember, multiple partners -- as in polygamy -- helps to
spread AIDS. Monogamy -- as in gay marriage -- DECREASES the spread of AIDS.
Therefore, gay marriage is actually REDUCING risk of harm from AIDs.Keep trying, Fred. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it magically disappear.
collegestudent25 says:"The idea here is universal recognition of
something being moral and good. No amount of discussion will change whether or
not homosexual behavior is moral. None of us have the right to change
another's moral principles."1) Universal recognition of
something moral an good? What planet do you live on? Morality is relative.
Many people in the world consider it "moral" to discriminate against
their fellow citizens. Here, let me rephrase your comment to show you..." No amount of discussion will change whether or not bigoted
behavior is moral. None of us have the right to change another's moral
principles."BTW; I find bigotry to be immoral and homosexuality
to be every bit as "moral" as heterosexuality. (See, more relativity
relating to morality).
Liberals still unable to say why two brothers shouldn't be able to marry or
3 polygamists. So I guess when they get on their soap box about equality, they
only support equality for some, and not others.There is no reason to
deny the true love between 2 brothers or 3 polygamists simply because other
polygamists relationhships weren't healthy. I can point to
studies that show violence is more prevalent in interracial couples - I suppose
using liberals argument therefore that interracial people shouldn't be
allowed to marry? "Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial
Couples: A Comparison to White and Ethnic Minority Monoracial Couples"
Rachel Fusco - 2009As this study proves, there is increased risk of
violence in interracial couples. Some of these boards have argued(poorly) that
any increased risk of harm is reason to prevent couples from marrying.I do not believe in discrimination and I don't believe believe it should
be illegal for interracial couples to marry. Unbelievable that some people
here would suggest it be illegal, due to increased risk.Still no
reason to deny 2 brothers or 3 polygamists from marrying the person/people of
Ranch,What didn't you understand about choice when it comes to
the man who wants to marry his brother? Or the man who wants to marry two
people? Perhaps his "Choice" is to marry his brother and another
person.Please be respectful of others choices if you are promoting
@Christopher B --"Liberals still unable to say..."Actually, we've said it many times. Your refusal to listen doesn't
change the facts.Polygamy and incest convey a significantly
increased risk of harm. Gay marriage doesn't. "There is no
reason to deny the true love... "Yes there is. Risk of harm.As for the brothers -- Remember, the harm principle is about
the increased RISK of harm -- not the certainty of it.Some rare
individuals may be able to drive drunk and never have an accident. But that
doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.Similarly,
some rare individuals may be able to partake in incestuous or polygamous
relationships without harming society. But that doesn't mean that incest or
polygamy should be legalized."As this study proves...."No, it doesn't.As another study in that same vein
("Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial and Monoracial Couples")
specifically states: "regression analyses indicated that interracial couples
demonstrated a higher level of mutual IPV than monoracial white couples but a
level similar to monoracial black couples."Unless you want to
outlaw all black marriages, you'll have to do better than that.
The whether it's your genes or whether it's the environment is a
pointless argument now. Recent research has shown that our choices actually
change our genes over our life time. So.. we are flawed to think that our genes
influence us totally. Now we know what we do and how we think influences them.
So... it could be our choice to be gay or it could be in our genes or both...
and from a scientific perspective only it's not possible to know which
right now with the current research.
All this talk of "increased risk" is comical. So some people think that
there is a baseline risk in marriage that is acceptable but anything above that
is reason to prevent others from marrying?Nonsense.Lets
just say for sake of argument the baseline risk of harm in marriage is at 10%.
What if a study proved that risk of harm increased to 11% in marraiges where
there is an age gap of more than 5 years? Should be make it illegal
for anyone greater than 5 year difference in age to marry?its
already been pointed out that not some races have increased risk in marriage,
shall we ban certain races from marrying?What is it can be proven that
when a democrat marries a republican the risk of harm increases from 10% to
10.2%, should it be illegal for a republican to marry a democrat?We're fine as a society with an inherent risk of harm at 10%(just as an
example), and that's it?And yet we already allow other races(whose
risk is higher) to marry?Flip, flop, flip flop.
@Girlse State --"...talk of "increased risk" is
comical."You may think it's comical, but the harm principle
is a foundational principle of law.And if "increased risk"
is comical, then why is drunk driving illegal when sober driving is legal,
hmmmm?Just a couple of examples -- no room for more!Muth
v. Frank: "“... the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting
incest, we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest
statute.” "Certain varieties of sexual conduct clearly remain outside
the reach of Lawrence, things like prostitution, public sex, nonconsensual sex,
sex involving children, and certainly incest, a condition universally subject to
criminal prohibitions."People v. McEvoy: ""'In any
given non-consanguineous relationship, the rate of severe abnormalities in
offspring is estimated at two to three percent...children of siblings or a
parent-child coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four
percent.'...This increased risk is surely sufficient to provide a
legitimate basis for criminalizing incest..."in re Marriage
Cases, California Supreme Court: "...the state continues to have a strong
and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or
incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a
sound family environment. "
Its a falsehood(nice word for lie) to say that society has some sort of baseline
acceptable inherent risk in marriage and that every marriage currently
permissible falls below that risk level, but that Chris's suggestion that
polygamists and brother be able to marry wouldn't. There are
countless different dynamics that could be considered in studying marriage risks
and which lead to higher risks(income levels, education, race, ethnicity,
geographical upbringing, age discrepancy), and certainly not all of those
dynamics would lead to exact equal "risk factor" If a study were done
and proved that difference in age, income, education, led to "increased
risk" would we suddenly make illegal any such marriages? No.As
bizarre as two brothers marrying sounds, and regardless of one's support of
polygamy, no such reason for not allowing them has been presented(unless those
people also claim certain marriages with proven higher risk(as shown in
Chris's study he mentions) that currently are legal should be made illegal.
Chris, it doesn't happen often, but you've clearly won.
Contariuser, perhaps you weren't aware, but two men can't procreate.
Mother nature didn't want them to. So Chris's argument of two
brothers still stands. Bringing in incest and deformed offspring is irrelevant
when it comes to two brothers. That was a swing and a miss for ya. Want to try
@Girlse State --"perhaps you weren't aware, but two men
can't procreate. Mother nature didn't want them to. So Chris's
argument of two brothers still stands."No, it doesn't.We can't make exceptions in the law for the tiny minorities of
individuals who might be able to carry out incestuous marriages without harm.
The laws are based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it.Similarly, we don't make exceptions in the law for the tiny minority of
drivers who might be able to drive safely while drunk. Drunk driving laws are
similarly based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it -- and drunk
driving is illegal for EVERYONE, even if they can prove that know harm will be
caused by their own individual drunk driving.
Sorry, I missed your previous post.@Girlse State --"Its a falsehood(nice word for lie) to say that society has some sort of
baseline acceptable inherent risk in marriage..."Sorry, but
you'll have to take up that supposed "lie" with the courts. And please note that nobody has made any claims about *individual*
marriages, but rather on the overall risks inherent with different *types* of
marriages."If a study were done and proved that difference in
age, income, education, led to "increased risk" would we suddenly make
illegal any such marriages? No."That is correct. we would not be
likely to make currently legal marriages illegal.And you know
why?It's because it's very difficult to take rights away
from people after they have already been granted. It is much more practical to
maintain prohibitions on behaviors that we know are risky, rather than to ban
behaviors when they have already long been accepted and legal.Thus
we maintain bans on types of marriage that we know convey significantly
increased risks compared to other types of marriage, but we do not try to ban
other types of marriage that are already legal.
RE; Contrariusester, Paul's teachings that remaining single is better than
marrying,(Paul)But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet
each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another. So I say to
those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay
unmarried, just as I am.(1cor 7 7-8)and v 34 and his interests are
divided. An unmarried woman(nuns) or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s
affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.,E.g.. Eunucks which were so born from their mother's womb; meaning, not
such who, through a natural temper and inclination of mind, “could easily
abstain from marriage, and chose to live single;” but such who had such
defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the
duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these
were born without proper and perfect organs for generation.Paul was
personally chosen and called by Jesus to be an apostle. Acts 9:15,
@donn --"Eunucks which were so born from their mother's
womb"That is correct. Jesus specifically said that people who
were "born eunuchs" (which, btw, includes homosexuals), people who were
made eunuchs (IOW, castrati), and people who chose to live as eunuchs (IOW,
celibate priests), should not marry women.Which sort of puts paid to
all those church leaders who have told gay men to get married to nice girls over
the years.... ;-)As Clement of Alexandria wrote 1800 years ago (he
is quoting the Bible and then referring to followers of Basilides -- and yes,
this is a direct quote from Clement): "'...there are some
eunuchs who are so from their birth...' And their explanation of this
saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of
repulsion from a woman..." (Stromata, III. 1.1) . They
acknowledged the meaning of this phrase 1800 years ago."(Paul)But I wish everyone were single"That is correct.
Paul taught that it was better to remain single than to marry. Do you agree with
RE: Contrariusester, That is correct. Paul taught that it was better to remain
single than to marry. Do you agree with him?”Yes, but when I
was born again I did not receive that gift.The Bible does speak of
celibacy as a gift, it is not listed with the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12;
Roman 12). Singleness is a gift that God gives everyone, at least temporarily.
For some, the gift of singleness is permanent; for others, God takes that gift
away and gives the gift of marriage in its place. The Bible Encourages those who
are celibate in Christian service that they are an important part of God’s
family.” but such who had such defects in nature that they
were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state;
who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born “without
proper and perfect organs for generation.” Not normal human nature or
behavior because of the fall.
@donn --"Yes, but when I was born again I did not receive that
gift."Really?? I'm surprised. In previous postings, IIRC,
you and/or Sharrona have told us that marrying is one of God's
commandments. Is it, or isn't it?"” but
such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and
unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without
hands or feet, these were born “without proper and perfect organs for
generation.” Not normal human nature or behavior because of the
fall."That isn't the Bible, Donn. In fact, I don't
think you've ever said where that quote is from.
Contrariusester, That isn't the Bible. Wrong,General
revelation is the revelation that God gives to all people, sinner or saint, in
creation. The created order clearly and loudly tells all men about God’s
power and divine nature (1:20).But though all men clearly know there
is a God, they do not honor or give thanks to Him (1:21). The fall into sin has
caused mankind to ignore and deny their Creator. Sin has affected our minds and
causes our thinking to become futile apart from Christ. This effect of sin upon
our minds is known in theology as the “noetic effects of sin.”The fall into sin has destroyed our capacity to reason. It is true that
the unredeemed mind will ultimately lead a person into futility. However, though
our minds have been affected by sin, they have not been destroyed. Unbelievers
still find truth quite often and can attain a breadth of knowledge in various
areas. Scripture presents logical arguments@marrying is one of God's
commandments? Commandment,You mis-understood my point. E,g.
Catholic Priests,Nuns and Paul have the gift of celibacy.
@donn --"That isn't the Bible. Wrong,"Nope.
Right. That quote you keep posting didn't come from the Bible. Where did it
come from?"@marrying is one of God's commandments?
Commandment,You mis-understood my point. E,g. Catholic Priests,Nuns and Paul
have the gift of celibacy."That's not what I asked.Is marriage one of God's commandments, or is it not? A simple yes
or no answer would be nice.If marriage is one of God's
commandments, then how could Paul say that it is better to remain single? Was he
speaking the word of God?And you still have never answered other
questions about Paul, either. If Paul was a prophet of God, then how
could he disagree with Jesus? Paul said that one should never divorce, but Jesus
said divorce was okay in cases of adultery.Paul also said that women
were inferior to men, and he supported slavery. Are these the words of God?