You can shout as many Bible quotes you want.
You can pretend that human sexuality is just for procreation -- in spite of totally forgetting about all those straight marriages were no children are possible.
You can turn a blind eye to all the unnecessary pain and suffering your intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry causes.
You can still not change the fact that seme-sex marriage SUPPORTS love and commitment.
SUPPORTS family values.
Gives a lie to your contention that two same sex partners can not love each other.
Your question can NOT be answered because it assumes something totally untrue. A loving committed same-sex relationship is NOT sinful. It is GOOD for the people involved and GOOD for society.
For 1800 years many bigoted and ignorant Christians believed that slavery was totally justified.
For even longer many bigoted and ignorant Christians believed that women had no right to self determination and should not vote.
Finally many people are starting to judge same-sex relationships with the light of understanding what sexual orientation is really all about and with the realization that these people are just like everyone else -- they just want to fall in love and get married.
Instead of opposing this you should all embrace it.
As for the ignorance implied with the statement: "The ‘sanctity’ of ‘traditional Christian marriage’ would be ruined!" I must take issue.
First of all all those same-sex couples ot there who want their relationships recognized by society and under the law - ARE ALREADY MARRIED.
Second,just how would their getting married have any effect on the marriage of anyone else? This is totally illogical. What you are REALLY saying is that YOU don't like the idea of them being allowed to get married legally. And you want to hurt them any way you can.
Next gay marriage per say is NOT illegal. It happens all the time. What we are talking about here is the LEGAL recognition of that marriage. And this is a matter of civil rights. if a gay person is to marry and have a loving intimate relationshipo, it MUST be with a person of their same sex. And THIS is what you are trying to stop. trying to deny them the right to marry -- the same right you say YOU HAVE but they should not. Where do you get the gaul to say that aome other person is NOT allowed the exact same right you assume for yourself?
And I must rebut the implied ignorance and down right unjust and irrational recriminatory judgment stated here.
I also do not believe that hatred -- the deliberate desire and attempt to hurt another -- should be the perogative of any segment of society.
One person wrote:
"In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not."
First of all YOUR moral beliefs are irrelevant. And many people are finally stating that homosexuals should be allowed legal marriage is because as people get more educated they realize that a gay person is no different from a straight person, and deserves the SAME rights. We do not expect "special" rights. Only the SAME rights.
This person wrote: "The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality."
First of all MANY legitimate Biblical scholars would refute this. And just why should YOUR concept of Biblical interpretation have any sway? Or even IF you are correct, why should this still matter? This is a secular nation. And no one should be bound by YOUR religious views. Other people have the same right to their differing views.
This person continues: "But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure."
Finally this person has said something which does make sense.
Then this person continues: "Homosexuality is not natural."
Looking at their bodies is irrelevant in the face that homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom and humanity. THUS de facto homosexuality is a very real and natural part of nature.
He continues: "They [man and woman] are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent."
He continues: "It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female."
This has NOTHING to do with physicality as he is trying to maintain. It has to do with humanity, social instincts, the desire for human intimacy, and love. The physical shape of appendages is totally irrelevant. That they DO INDEED have satisfying sexual intimacy contradicts that body shape has any importance at all.
This person is trying to reduce the tremendous meaning and amazing significance of marriage to its physicall component. Too typical of irrational concepts of intimacy and the meaning of intimate personal relationships. Human sexuality is so much MORE than merely two animals reproducing. It is involved in the joyous union of two thinking, loving committed people giving themselves to each other. Please stop trying to reduce marriage to mere physicality.
"Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society."
Again this person is confusing two seperate concepts. One that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is merely held out as a FACT of nature. But this person is trying to make the very existence of homosexual activity a MORAL judgment. This person knows nothing of logic or reason.
We can say the following. HETEROSEXUAL activity exists in the animal kingdom but because crulty and brutality also exists therefore we conclude that HETEROSEXUAL activity is also to be condemned.
And thank you for making my point. Homosexuaity IS a part of nature. Your MORAL assessment of this activity is irrelevant.
He continues: "Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas."
What we are picking and choosing is simply this: We deserve exactly the SAME rights as you have.
Then he continues: "They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive."
This person insists on making two correect statements and then making a conclusion which DOES NOT fowwow logically from what he says. Everything he stated is correect until the phrase "then it must also be nature and acceptable to eat people alive." Where the heck does this conclusion come from? HE is the one trying to reduce human sexuality to the merely animal component. What we are trying to maintain is that homosexuality is a NORMAL AND NATURAL component of the HUMAN world. And we too, made in the image of God, are capable of love, committment, and self-sacrifice. And out intimate loving relationships ARE also in God's image.
He contends: "Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty."
But it is his argunment which is faulty. We are NOT stating that since homosexuality is a component of the animal kingdom then we should be allowed to have homosexual acctivity. We are in fact stating that the appearance of homosexuality in BOTH the animal kongdom and in humanity de facto makes it a NATURAL component of human life.
That homosexual activity is MORAL is another issue altogether and removed from the argument that it is naturel. And what i contend YOUR assessment of the moraslity of homosexual activity is IRRELEVANT.
You are not allowed to deny us our legitimate civil rights just because of YOUR (erronious) moral beliefs.
"Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.'"
Well buddy wake up. Homosexual activity IS protected. Homosexuals do have the right to exist and have intimate relationships. We do not care what you believe. The Supreme Court has already stated differently.
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court expressly recognized that the right of privacy protects private consensual homosexual conduct among adults.
He adds: "What about pedophilia or bestiality?"
Typical practice of the bigoted and ignorant. To compare our beautiful loving committed self-sacrificing relationships to pedophilia or besteality is totally bogus. Just because YOU compare the two doesn't make the moral evaluation of homosexuality correct.
He continues: "These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?"
I can also make absurd statements, like this "People say that heterosexual practices should be allowed by law. But what about polygamy and incest and a man having sex with a female goat? These too are sexual practices. Should these too be allowed?"
He concludes: "Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy . . .
. . .society and and homosexuality is not helping the family."
He is right in part. The issues of the morality of homosexuality is not argued adequately in a few sentences. However, I contend OUR concept of homosexuality in the context of a loving committed relationship is worthy of respect. And HIS concept of morality should not be a matter for determining a person's civil rights under the law.
As far as FAMILY goes one does not support the societal construct of marriage by denying the participation of a significant segment of society in it. People wanting marriage WANT FAMILY. They WANT family values. They support family and family values. It is people like the respondant her who wants to undermine the family by denying others from having a family.
Same-sex marriage is GOOD for society and supports family values. There are many children involved here too and no one seems to be concerned enough for them. They too have the right for society to include them into the ranks of FAMILY.
And TEARDROPS you wrote: "why do Homosexuals demand acceptance, and special rights, and recognition"
We demand acceptance because we exist and just like you we have dreams hopes and many of us just want to do what you want, to fall in love and get married. And we ONLY WANT EXACTLY the SAME rights you have -- to live in an intimate relatuonship with the person we love and to have our relationship recognized under the law. These are NOT special rights. Just the ones YOU already have. And why not recognition? Our loving committed self-sacrificing relationships have the same value as yours.
For a more detailed argument FOR gay marriage and the recognition of homosexuality as a NATURAL aspect of human sexuality please see:
"Departing from Deviance" by Henry L. Minton
"Virtually Normal" by Andrew Sullivan
""A Place at the Table" by Bruce Bawler
"Gay Marriage" by Jonathan Rauch
""Why You Should Give a Damn about Gay Marriage" by Davina Kotulski, PhD
"Why Marriage?" by George Chuncey
""What God Has Joined Together" by David G. Meyers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni
"Why Marriage Matters" by van Wolfson
"Blessing Same-Sex Unions" by Mark D. Jordon
About the Christianity and Homosexuality see:
There are many support groups for gay people of specific denominations.
Catholic: Dignity USA http://www.dignity.usa.org
Evangelicals Concerned: http://www.ecwr.org
More Light Presbyterians: http://www.mlp.org
United Church of Christ: http://www.ucccoalition.org
and others (google gay and specific denomination)
There are many excellent books available too for the Gay Christian
"Gay Christian 101" by Rick Brentlinger
[See also the website: http://gaychristan101.com ]
"The Children are Free" by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley
"The Church and the Homosexual" by John J. McNeill (Catholic)
"Homosexuality and Christian Faith" ed. by Walter Wink
"Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality" by Jack Rogers
"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel A. Helminiak
And there are Two more books everyone should read to get a true perspective on the difficulties of being gay in a Christian world:
"Stranger at the Gate" by Rev. Mel White
"Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son" by Leroy Aarons