What would Jesus really do?

[Universe Prince]

Because homosexuality is not accepted as normal by the majority of people, but the courts are increasingly supporting a liberal interpretation of the Constitution , it has become necessary to amend the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people.

The will of what people and why? The will of not all but some people, and because it offends religious sensibilities.

It is also inaccurate to make the argument that Christians do not object to adultery and strippers and the like.

That is not the argument I made.

In fact, until very recently adultery has been a crime in most states.

And until relatively recently sodomy was a crime in most states. There have been all sorts of laws reflecting a puritanical Christian attitude. Some places still have laws against sex toys.

Christian groups routinely object to strip clubs or porn shops and there are whole ministries dedicated to helping victims of pornography addicition and those involved in the sex industry.  Christians objected to making no-fault divorce and the like easier to obtain on the grounds that the institution of marriage - and thereby society itself - would deteriorate.

Indeed. And yet no one is calling for an amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage from adulterers and porn stars. No one, to my knowledge, is insisting that we need to codify the historical custom of fidelity in marriage.

There is little doubt that we will lose the current battle, because Satan has deceived many people into confusing personal freedom for license to commit evil.  This is in large part because he has also managed to confuse many Christians into confusing the duty to call for repentance for a duty to judge others.

That cuts both ways.

I believe the United States that we know will cease to exist altogether within our children's lifetime without a significant reawakening.  Terror attacks and a series of natural disasters aren't getting our attention.  Just like in Biblical times, anyone who tries to suggest that God is trying to tell us something is laughted down and marginalized.  Like I said, the path is predictable and prophecied.

Quite possibly God is trying to tell us something. But that something may not be what many people believe it to be. Personally, I have doubts that God is trying to tell us we need more laws reflecting conservative American Christian preferences.

[Universe Prince]

First off, it's not just a legal agreement between two people. [...] Legal marriage is, specifically, a legal agreement between two people, and the state, with certain prerogatives guaranteed by the state.. In other words, it isn't just a contract between two people, it's a contract between two people and the Representative of society at large.

Accepting for the sake of argument that you are correct, then perhaps that is the problem in the first place.

There's nothing preventing any two, or three, or any number of consenting adults from concluding such a contract between themselves now (this may no longer be true in Virginia, where a recent ballot initiative might also have outlawed such agreements. I'm not entirely clear on the actual consequences).

Then why does everyone keep telling me that it's the gay rights movement that wants to change things and the anti-homosexual marriage folks who want to keep things as they are? I think you're wrong on this one.

I will illustrate: one of the justifications advanced by advocates of gay marriage is that hospitals will be required to admit partners in gay marriages visitation rights in the same manner they're required to grant visitation rights in straight marriages.

Now think about that. The hospital isn't a signatory to the marriage contract, but it's bound by conditions of a contract between two other people.

No, it isn't. The hospital doesn't have to admit anyone or can admit anyone. That most choose to limit visitations to family members is not a sign that they are bound by the conditions of a marriage contract. It is a sign that they seek to control access to patients (generally for the intended good of the patient) and the family members line is convenient one to draw.

Second, I take issue with "agreement allowed to almost everybody else". Actually, it's an agreement allowed in only one circumstance that I'm aware of. People form all kinds of relationships that don't enjoy special protections by the state. There's no protections for people who form bowling teams or garage bands. Why not? Because those relationships, like gay relationships, are of no consequence to anyone else besides the participants in them.  So, why are straight relationships of interest to society at large, but not gay ones? Isn't that treating them "unequally"?

It sure does treat them unequally, which is entirely justifyable, because they are not equal situations! Any honest examination of equality would have to consider equality of consequences. We can do that easily enough by isolating the variables. Consider  - what would be the consequences if people, from this day forth, failed to form gay relationships? What would the country look like 20 years from now?

Now, what would happen if people failed to form straight relationships? What would the population look like 20 years from now? Smoked dope with any Shakers lately? I didn't think so. Obviously, society at large has an interest in encouraging and facilitating hetero relationships that it doesn't have in encouraging and facilitating gay relationships.

Whoa there yourself. One, I don't smoke (or use in any way) dope. Two, whatever interest society may have in encouraging and facilitating heterosexual relationships does not automatically translate into justification for denying homosexuals the ability to become legally married. It also does not mean that society needs state involvement in deciding to encourage heterosexual marriage.

There isn't even a libertarian argument here. The freedom to form relationships of your own choosing and engage in whatever sexual behavior you prefer without interference is a whole different thing from demanding that society at large sanction and endorse it. You have the right to behave as you choose. You don't have the right to demand my endorsement.

On the contrary, there is a libertarian argument here, perhaps several. First, no one is demanding your endorsement. No one demands your endorsement for the multitude of heterosexual marriages that occur every day, and I doubt seriously that any homosexuals are going to show up at your door or send you a letter demanding you endorse their relationship and/or marriage. Second, no one is asking you to do anything to support or endorse homosexual marriage as a cause or in general. If anything what the gay rights movement is asking for is that government officially get out of their way, which could easily be called a libertarian argument. Unlike Welfare or Social Security or Defense spending, which all require money from taxpayers, homosexual marriage, in and of itself, places no demands on you at all. You are not required to do anything or surrender anything for it to exist. Third, the freedom to form relationships of one's own choosing without interference is, from a libertarian perspective, exactly what the homosexual marriage debate is about. If the state says marriage is okay for these people but not for those people, then the state is, in point of fact, interfering with the freedom to form relationships of one's own choosing. Maybe you want to argue that such interference is justified, but don't tell me there are no libertarian arguments here.

[Universe Prince]

Jailing a Theif is necessacery to business and jailing a Murderer is helpfull to public health , but would jailing a homosexual improve something?

That all depends on how much and what sort of effect you think homosexuals have on society. And you must believe they have some effect that needs abatement or you would not seek to use the law to stop them from being able to marry.

[Universe Prince]

That Christians fight for a particular agenda does not mean that we fight for theocracy.

True. But that you do not fight for a theocracy does not mean your fight for a particular Christian agenda is not fight to make your Christian preferences into law.

[Plane]

Jailing a Theif is necessacery to business and jailing a Murderer is helpfull to public health , but would jailing a homosexual improve something?

That all depends on how much and what sort of effect you think homosexuals have on society. And you must believe they have some effect that needs abatement or you would not seek to use the law to stop them from being able to marry.

I do think it pernicious , but I don't think that the law has a good solution .

Neither is  drastic change in what the word "marrage" means going to help anything.

[The_Professor]

Because homosexuality is not accepted as normal by the majority of people, but the courts are increasingly supporting a liberal interpretation of the Constitution , it has become necessary to amend the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people.

The will of what people and why? The will of not all but some people, and because it offends religious sensibilities.

It is also inaccurate to make the argument that Christians do not object to adultery and strippers and the like.

That is not the argument I made.

In fact, until very recently adultery has been a crime in most states.

And until relatively recently sodomy was a crime in most states. There have been all sorts of laws reflecting a puritanical Christian attitude. Some places still have laws against sex toys.

Christian groups routinely object to strip clubs or porn shops and there are whole ministries dedicated to helping victims of pornography addiction and those involved in the sex industry.  Christians objected to making no-fault divorce and the like easier to obtain on the grounds that the institution of marriage - and thereby society itself - would deteriorate.

Indeed. And yet no one is calling for an amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage from adulterers and porn stars. No one, to my knowledge, is insisting that we need to codify the historical custom of fidelity in marriage.

There is little doubt that we will lose the current battle, because Satan has deceived many people into confusing personal freedom for license to commit evil.  This is in large part because he has also managed to confuse many Christians into confusing the duty to call for repentance for a duty to judge others.

That cuts both ways.

I believe the United States that we know will cease to exist altogether within our children's lifetime without a significant reawakening.  Terror attacks and a series of natural disasters aren't getting our attention.  Just like in Biblical times, anyone who tries to suggest that God is trying to tell us something is laughed down and marginalized.  Like I said, the path is predictable and prophesied.

Quite possibly God is trying to tell us something. But that something may not be what many people believe it to be. Personally, I have doubts that God is trying to tell us we need more laws reflecting conservative American Christian preferences.

I believe you may be talking past each other.

Anyway, as a Christan I reserve the right to want a government that properly, in my view only, represents my belief. You do as well.

But, this is a prodominantly Christian nation founded by, to a large degree anyway, Christians of one sort or another. Some Christians feel that their beliefs should not be intertwined with their government. Others, as I, feel differently. Don't get me wrong. I sometimes feel like the government should continue its CRUSADE toward depravity, so Armageddon will come quicker and get it all over with. But, most of the time, I realize my job is to hold back the forces of evil as best I can and that sometimes means having a government to help in this battle.

[_JS]

Well, the Word of God does indicate that murderers and homosexuals and a litany of others will not be in Heaven, so perhaps they could be contrued as being on the same level, e.g. sinful acts. We have already placed into our legal system the principle that murder is deserving of punishment and thievery and.... (of course, we legislate morality! duh) By that token, why shouldn't homosexuality be condemned? Or, do we pick and choose?

I sometimes feel like the government should continue its CRUSADE toward depravity, so Armageddon will come quicker and get it all over with. But, most of the time, I realize my job is to hold back the forces of evil as best I can and that sometimes means having a government to help in this battle.

Quite honestly, and in my humble opinion, I believe one of the worst aspects of modern Christianity is the strong desire of individuals to regulate the admission into the afterlife and what exactly takes place at the end of linear time. Too many Christians, especially Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants focus almost completely on The Book of Revelations and eschatology which tends to bring about an unhealthy view of the world and a belief that human interaction can somehow force God's hand. Moreover, it brings a great deal of condemnation and judgment of the self-assured, but certainly theologically weak Calvinist fire and brimstone variety, down on a lot of otherwise decent human beings who are quickly turned off from Christ's saving grace. It fills the world with a class of self-proclaimed "saved" (who once used the now less-preserved term "elect") who can then enjoy their social status and capitalist wealth while looking down upon the non-elect, who quite simply deserve what they get - after all, Revelations says so in some obscure Nostradamus way.

[Universe Prince]

Anyway, as a Christan I reserve the right to want a government that properly, in my view only, represents my belief. You do as well.

Um, not quite. As a Christian, I think the government has no business meddling in my religion, and my theology has little or no business in the process of making laws. While my political philosophy is influenced by my theology, they are not the same thing.

[domer]

REPOSTED FROM WRONG THREAD:

Pooch, my relationship with religion is not love-hate, it's more like "love-run away" in the Monty Python sense. I think the religious sentiment, the respect for awe and the Almighty, and the moral principles that provide a foundation for religion and lead to its greatest expression of goodness in a maturing philosophy, are the cornerstones of a healthy society. That does not rule out, however, (in ways I have not yet explored) the creation of these pillars of human life and community by means other than the traditional route followed in Western civilization. Nor does it imply that religion should not be "responsive" (in the highest sense of the term), or that, like every product of the human mind (even if divinely-inspired), it does not require periodic tune-ups and perhaps overhauls to match God's promise to "human experience" (in the highest sense of THAT term). It is incomprehensible, to me, that One as Inexhaustible as the Godhead we imagine can't Himself break free from the bonds we've put upon Him (our static conceptions) and operate, as it were, in ways not yet imagined but surely within in His range as God. Thus, as I see it, as some religions do, ossifying the Lord in ways that "capture the Spirit" in so literal a way should consider letting God free now and then to write a new chapter, perhaps this time a comedy.