Talk:Same-sex marriage

List of viewpoints

1. the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.
   • The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one
     • the Old Testament considers it an abomination
       • The New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality.
       • Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
2. We need to keep the Ten Commandments, as they help live a Christ-like life
   • The Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.
   • What about Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
3. Old Testament prohibitions can be ignored, because
   1. it says quite a few things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today.
   2. the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity
   3. only the New Testament really matters.
4. marriage is a right
5. homosexuals should have 'equal rights'
6. same-sex "marriage" is simply a matter of giving equal rights to gays
7. Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other
   • "very few want to marry each other" is a lie
   • I want to marry another man.
8. the immediate intent of same-sex "marriage" agitation is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"
   • There are many reasons for fighting for gay marriage. There are over 1,000 rights that married heterosexual couples have, all of which are denied to same-sex couples because they can't legally marry.
9. Same-sex "marriage" adopts the form of marriage for the supposed purpose of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality.
   • You are all right in saying the institution of marriage is falling apart. But, instead of actually trying to look at the problem and say, "Hm, what can we do better?", you all would rather blame it on a minority population because that's what is easy. Divorce rates are up to 50% or higher nowadays. Why is this? Not because of gay marriage, you idiots. It's a complete lack of respect for the institution of marriage.
10. Nothing from the Old Testament is nullified unless it is nullified explicitly in the New Testament
11. The New Testament is hostile to homosexuality.
    • Oh really, where?
    1. The Bible is clear on this
12. Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts.
13. giving 'equal legal rights' to male couples has no effect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony
    • Exactly!

Well there is also the viewpoint that, even if gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, Christians are instructed to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and more importantly "render unto Caesar (i.e. the government) that which is Caesar's (i.e. the provision of government-made rights)" -- Jesus didn't say "go ahead and stone the bitch", he prevented the old law from being carried out, and then used his witness alone to persuade the sinner, saying "go forth and sin no more".... he didn't say that she hadn't sinned, but demonstrated that the Christian course of action is not to have the law prevent people from sinning -- if the government (i.e. Caesar) wants to let gays be "married" and give them tax breaks and hospital visitation and such, that doesn't involve the Church, which ought not be tainted by the corruption that is all politics, anyway.... the Christian course of action is to tell the sinners of their sin, and if they refuse to hear, trust God to deal with it.... trying to get the government to interfere one way or the other is the same as denying God.... Pandeism 22:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

In this belated reply, I'd like to point out that marriage is more of a responsibility than a "right". It's something which society encourages because it is an institution which promotes social stability by protecting women and children.

I've also written an essay just know on the Mysterious male-female relationship. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Discussion

A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. MountainDew 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

• There are a lot of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. Dpbsmith 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --Sid 3050 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Hey Colin what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --BenjaminS 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) ColinR^talk 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --Ed Poor 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). ColinR^talk 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --BenjaminS 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. ColinR^talk 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --BenjaminS 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --BenjaminS 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. ColinR^talk 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --BenjaminS 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Edit war

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? Tsumetai 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --Ed Poor 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

• Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --Ed Poor 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us parley

Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here. I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes and plasticaccepted). Cracker_talk 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Marriage as a right

• "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have 'equal rights'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --Ed Poor 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. ColinR^talk 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --CPAdmin1 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence. Cracker_talk

lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this house of cards become? --Ed Poor 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) ColinR^talk 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. Cracker_talk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. ColinR^talk 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". Cracker_talk

Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P ColinR^talk 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally i don't beleive that anything from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --BenjaminS 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh? Cracker_talk 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Who says so?

Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin).

• The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

• • Romans 1:24-28

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,

so yes, the bible is clear on this. --CPAdmin1 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

• The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

• The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell why "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to who makes this argument and what their argument would be. Dpbsmith 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. ColinR^talk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oh, I'd rather not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... Dpbsmith 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.

(Unsigned comments by User:Ed Poor)

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? It is a formal position taken by Focus on the Family? Is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article after it's supported, not before. Dpbsmith 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)