Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Over time, this will result in the church losing moral authority in society, so it is a Pyrrhic victory in the end. As society sees gay couples enter into meaningful, long lasting, and functioning marriages they will contrast that with the proclamations of the church, and they won't match up. Petards and hoisting come to mind.

I'm certain that Roman law often contravened the scriptures. Unless you think God approves of forcing slaves to fight one another to death for the entertainment of a blood-thirsty crowd... well, on second thought.....I'm also not aware of a single Scripture that says that we should follow law except where it contradicts scripture. If that provision was in there, it seems obvious that it would be explicitly included by both Peter and Paul... Hell, Jesus himself said render unto Caesar... nowhere did God Incarnate offer such a provision. I do understand that. I was once a Christian and when I was I believed that you could hate the sin while loving the sinner. I know where you are coming from. And I find Phillip's objections both scriptural and Constitutionally protected... up to a point.God isn't going to decide traffic laws... he grants the authority for humans to decide for themselves and by honoring those laws, you honor God. That's scriptural. So if humans pass laws granting gay marriage, then we are obligated to obey the law. God will judge with or without our intervention, seems to me.Was Jesus endorsing prostitution by talking to prostitutes? Okay, neither does he endorse gay marriage if we legally allow gay marriage. If you believe the bible, then you should trust that God is in control, that each of us will be judged on our merits, and that unlike fanatical Muslims who must believe Allah is so weak that he requires direct intervention on his behalf, that Jesus has the wheel... so to speak.As a Christian, you should always worry more about your walk with God than other people's. Many, many, many Christians (and I was guilty of it too) are far more concerned with what other people are doing wrong when its themselves they need to be worrying about.

The 1950’s and Loving v. Virginia come to mind, too. Interracial marriage was absolutely the Devil’s Work for lots of Southern Christians back then (and still, to a bigger extent that you might think) but it gets a pass from even the Southern Baptists these days.

Yes, we know your god is a god of hate. You really don't need to keep pointing it out to us.

Read hyro's post. He clearly doesn't know it.However, your view is the formula from the true champions of h a t e who are destroying rational thought. The absurdity of marrying two people who have no natural biological reason for marriage and defending it as a civil right and calling those h a t e r s who know it's krazy must be killing half the brain cells in the country. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Marriage isn't about biology in the first place; it's a social construct. But even if it was about biology, you're saying that it's absurd for childless heterosexual couples to be married - and for adoptive parents to be married.

No I'm not. It's a PRINCIPLE that defines marriage as for heterosexuals because they have the biological qualifications whether they are defective in them or not. And you are demonstrating exactly what I was talking about, the death of bazillions of brain cells.

It's your so-called "principle" that's absurd. There is no difference "in principle" between one couple that can't have children and another couple that can't have children.

Yes there is a difference: They are biologically built for it and gays are not. You are making a principle out of a mere accidental defect. And it is conceivable that their problem could be cured too. Which is not the case for gays.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Marriage isn't exclusive to child-rearing, though. A marriage is a partnership - a division of labor with someone you love. As for the biological imperatives, yes, there is a biological component to why most people are heterosexuals... even homosexuals would probably say that its a good thing that most couples are heterosexuals if, for nothing else, so they can continue procreating and continuing the human race.But here's the thing... if you can conceive that a person can be biologically born with elements of both male and female organs (even Jesus acknowledged that Eunuchs were sometimes manufactured and others were simply born that way, no fault of the parents or God) then surely you can conceive that nature can naturally produce attraction between members of the same sex.I mean, if God was so concerned about marriage to one person of the opposite sex then surely he could will it that we weren't attracted to multiple members of the opposite sex (polygamy/infidelity). Surely, in his omnipotence he has the power to ensure that each of us are only attracted to the one specific person he designed us to be with... and yet that is not clearly the case, as evidenced by the frailty of people in the modern era and was the bane of King David (carnal desire for people other than his wife) in his time, thousands of years ago.If you can grasp that conceptually then there really is no reason not grasp how homosexuals exist and how their existence is innocuous. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

It makes no difference what somebody is "biologically built for" if they can't actually do it. I'm not making a principle of anything. I'm pointing out that your so-called "principle" is nonsensical.Besides, there isn't necessarily any "defect" involved at all, either accidental or otherwise. By your so-called principle, a couple who didn't want children would also be ineligible for marriage. Gay couples can adopt, which is as effective a cure as any for childlessness.

Actually I didn't say anything about having children and wasn't thinking of that, so I got distracted. I was merely talking about the biological FIT between the sexes. You know, we're kind of built for complementarity and two of the same sex aren't. That's what I meant by biological qualification. And that's a basic biological PRINCIPLE. However, it is true that this basic biological fit is what leads to children so there is a connection but it's not inevitable and the fit alone makes for the qualification. If you try to defend sodomy as a "fit" I'm through with you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think biology is very cut-and-dry about the issue.
In fact, it's very, very messy.However - on average, and in general... you certainly have a point. Man and woman go together on a certain biological principle.
The problem is... this principle has nothing to do with marriage.Marriage is about love.
And love is subjective.
Different people love different people for different reasons.Saying people's subjective view on love should adhere to some biological principle is equivalent to saying people's subjective view on love should adhere to some physics principle.Can you imagine claiming people have to get married depending on fitting into a certain complementary weight range? It's silly.
Just as silly as claiming people have to get married depending on fitting into a certain biological ability range.There are many principles.
Pretty much all of them have nothing to do with marriage because they have nothing to do with love.Any principle not dealing with love has no place in claiming anything about marriage.

No, in the history of the human race marriage is NOT about love. if it were I guess parents could marry children and we could all marry our dogs and cats. No it is not about love, it's about the bioloigical principle I'm talking about.\\Oh and who is talking about anyone HAVING to get married?????.This is all getting too ridiculously irrational. Good grief.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who cares about history?
Do you think marriage should be about love or not? A marriage consists of at least 2 beings.
For the marriage to be about love, both beings have to consent to getting married.
Children cannot consent.
Dogs and cats cannot consent.Therefore - you are wrong, no marriage "based on love" involves children or dogs or cats.
Try again. Yes, it is.
Love is the only thing marriage should be based on. Why would anything else matter? No, it's not.
Why should anything not based on love be considered concerning a marriage?
We also don't base marriages on the engineering principle that loads must be supported.Just because you can identify a principle doesn't mean it applies to marriage.
Try again.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.