The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No. Because even while medically incapable of having a child themselves, they still present the model for society of the smallest possible unit that naturally produces and raises it’s own offspring, in an intact home. That is, 1 man and woman. That was a soft ball. You’re going to have to do better than that.

How do they present the model you claim when it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO REPRODUCE?[/quote]

How do they present the model? This is a serious question? Um, 1 male and 1 female…

[quote]forlife wrote:
Do you consider marriage between an infertile straight couple to be a perversion?

Oh that’s right, your logic only goes one way.[/quote]

thunderbolt has refuted this argument at least 20 times.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
forlife wrote:
Do you consider marriage between an infertile straight couple to be a perversion?

Oh that’s right, your logic only goes one way.

thunderbolt has refuted this argument at least 20 times. [/quote]

I don’t even get how they believe this to be a gotcha question. A married hetero couple, medically incapable of reproducing, still presents the model. 1 male and 1 female, in a committed relationship. That is the smallest unit that can raise it’s own biological offspring, naturally, and in an intact home. How this even needs explaining, I can’t fathom.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How do they present the model? This is a serious question? Um, 1 male and 1 female…[/quote]

You forgot the part about them being INFERTILE. How does that present a positive model when they can’t have children?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
thunderbolt has refuted this argument at least 20 times. [/quote]

Thunderbolt has repeatedly dodged the point. He harps about gay marriage threatening straight marriage, but disappears when you point out that children raised by gay couples WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS EVEN IF GAY MARRIAGE DIDN’T EXIST.

God, maybe if I start typing in caps more often people will finally get the point.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How do they present the model? This is a serious question? Um, 1 male and 1 female…

You forgot the part about them being INFERTILE. How does that present a positive model when they can’t have children?
[/quote]

Let me tell you a story about the birds and the bees, and where babies come from…

Infertile, or not, it is still one more committed couple consisting of the smallest unit (pay attention) biologically…anatomically…designed…built…capable…of producing and raising it’s own offspring. 1 male, 1 female. A model for society…

You’re gay, not dumb. So, stop playing at it.

[quote]forlife wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
forlife, do you believe in the gay “gene” and if so who did you inherit your “gayness” from?

The best evidence currently available is that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic, in utero hormonal, and environmental factors.

There is some evidence that homosexuality may be carried through the mother’s side, but I think the jury is still out on that.

Half of the children in my family are gay (2/4).[/quote]

[quote]forlife wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
forlife, do you believe in the gay “gene” and if so who did you inherit your “gayness” from?

The best evidence currently available is that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic, in utero hormonal, and environmental factors.

There is some evidence that homosexuality may be carried through the mother’s side, but I think the jury is still out on that.

Half of the children in my family are gay (2/4).[/quote]

I think that you are on to something there. I also believe that homosexuality might have a genetic component to it. Unfortunately though, unlike many other scientific truths or falsehoods, this subject is too emotional for most people to study scientifically. To me, as a scientist, it is just that: either a truth or a falsehood, in respects to how much homosexuality is a heritable trait and how much it is influenced by environment.

Biologist EO Wilson for example, has an idea that the genes for homosexuality were passed on via kin selection; that matchmaking males (who themselves often did not marry) like shamen, in ancient societies were actually homosexual, but who spread their genes by helping genetically similar individuals achieve reproductive success.

Another example that he used, was a gay uncle or aunt supplying resources for their nieces or nephews so they could achieve reproductive success; which would make copies of their (most likely recessive) genes to be reproduced.

Forlife, your statement is the same thing I’m saying. I don’t care how you believe, or what you do within the confines of your own home, but just leave me and my children alone.

Don’t force your opinion on me. Don’t force your belief on me. Don’t force schools to teach things that should be taught at home. Don’t force churches to perform marriages that they don’t believe in.

Stop calling my beliefs a fairy tale. If you want recognition for your fairy tale that Gay’s are born that way, than you should at least recognize that my religious beliefs are just as real as your belief that somehow God messed up and made you the way you are. Or, perhaps he messed up and made me the way I am. Regardless, my point is, You recognize my beliefs and stop calling them fairy tales, simply because it will justify your existence, and then perhaps I may be able to at least entertain the idea that there is another reason for the Gay Lifestyle besides choice. That goes for all of those out there who keep attacking the religious community. I acknowledge there are some who are religious zealots, who judge and look down upon others for their beliefs. But there are many more who simply want to live a christian life, and if you ask, we will share what we believe in. That is not to say you have to believe the way I do, but don’t expect me to just sit in a closet and not express my point of view just as adamantly as you all express yours.

I find it sad, that when some one brings up the topic of God, Jesus Christ, or being a Christian, the first thing people think is that we are trying to force you to believe in something. We share a message. You can believe it or not, it makes no difference to me, but I’m not going to stop anymore than you would if you had something you believed in. I’m not going to make fun of you or ridicule your beliefs, I will however, respectfully disagree and then we can move on.

Forlife, I can see it now, and I know your going to say the same thing all the gay rights activists are saying out here in Kalifornia. Gay Marriage would not be taught in the schools. Ok, that is a blatant lie. Kalifornia family code mandates that marriage be taught in the school. So, if gay marriage were legal, SUPRISE, it would be taught in school. A little fact the gay movement would like to gloss over.

Next, Churches would not be forced to perform gay marriages, you threw that one at me before, and all I did was do a little search through google and found at least three cases where the Gays were not going after the church, but were sueing the pastor civilly because he/she refused to perform the ceremony. So, both of your arguments just do not hold water.

I know eventually Gay Marriage will be legalized. It is only a matter of time. After all, how would all of the calamities in the Bible come true if the World did not progress to a level of unrighteousness, which will be unacceptable to God, unless Gay Marriage becomes accepted by society? Now, don’t get all excited, I’m not saying I’m perfect. I will probably one of the first to burn, all I’m saying is that religion is not just going to go away. And, I will keep testifying to the truthfulness of the gospel.

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Forlife, your statement is the same thing I’m saying. I don’t care how you believe, or what you do within the confines of your own home, but just leave me and my children alone.[/quote]

He not asking for YOU to personally recognize the marriage. He wants the government benefits.

Who’s forcing Churches to do anything?

[quote]forlife wrote:

Thunderbolt has repeatedly dodged the point. He harps about gay marriage threatening straight marriage, but disappears when you point out that children raised by gay couples WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS EVEN IF GAY MARRIAGE DIDN’T EXIST.[/quote]

  1. Wasn’t the “point” referred to by PRCalDude the “infertility” canard, which after being refuted, somehow disappeared down the rabbit hole of “verbal diarrhea”?

Interesting change of subject, though - if I were you, I’d probably change it, too.

  1. In Forlife, PhD’s world, definitions are as meaningless as “correlations”, as “dodging” apparently means “answers the question”. In other threads, here are brief snippets of my “disappearing” on the issue:

A straw man - what is the count up to? I never said that gay marriage would prevent otherwise existing children from being raised by their biological parents. You’d do well to argue against arguments actually being made.

and

No, as I have said too many times, I acknowledged that gay marriage would have no effect on getting existing
children back into the care of the biological parents that created them. That they are already in the care of a single parent or foster care is a separate question, and marriage is designed to prevent children from ever being in this care as an initial matter.

Forlife seems to not understand that (a) people around here have memories, and (b) historical threads are still available for the viewing.

But he keeps talking - with his credibility somewhere in between O.J. Simpson and a mortgage-backed security.

Makavali, What do you mean who is forceing churches to do anything?

I think I explained it quite clearly. If you still don’t understand all it will require is a little research on your part to find the answer. The gay community is taking church leaders to court and sueing them civilly, which in turn forces them to either spend the monies necessary to defend themselves, or bow down to their demands to perform the ceremonies.

I don’t know how it can be more clear. Look it up. You will see it is happening. It is happening in England, Canada, and Mass.

I am not sure why you would want to get married again anyway. Did you not already betray the trust of one partner and family? Why put yourself in a position to do it again?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Infertile, or not, it is still one more committed couple consisting of the smallest unit (pay attention) biologically…anatomically…designed…built…capable…of producing and raising it’s own offspring. 1 male, 1 female. A model for society…
[/quote]

INCAPABLE, not capable. What a dumb ass.

Obviously, they cannot be a model for society because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to produce and raise their own offspring.

They may partially fit your idea of a model by being male and female, but they completely lack a critical part of your model by virtue of being infertile.

Admit it. Your “model” doesn’t hold up for infertile couples, which only proves that your “model” is a sham.

What you really mean by “model” is the pairing of male and female, period.

[quote]forlife wrote:

What you really mean by “model” is the pairing of male and female, period.[/quote]

Yes. That would be the smallest unit capable of naturally producing, and raising, it’s own offspring. Therefore, even when a hetero couple fails to produce their own children, they still serve as a model.

A committed relationship between 1 man and woman. Which, again, is the smallest unit capable of doing what, forlife? You should’ve conceeded this point long ago and saved some credibility.