God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Jose Fly]

I disagree and contend that the redefinition of marriage and the family

Same-sex marriage merely "redefines" one aspect of marriage. Throughout human history the various aspects of "marriage" have been quite variable. For example, marrying for love is a relatively recent concept. In many societies marriage was (or in some cases, still is) more about political power and money than love.

So the argument that "we can't change marriage" is historically ignorant.

 

[columbus]

Same-sex marriage merely "redefines" one aspect of marriage. Throughout human history the various aspects of "marriage" have been quite variable. For example, marrying for love is a relatively recent concept. In many societies marriage was (or in some cases, still is) more about political power and money than love.

So the argument that "we can't change marriage" is historically ignorant.

What I find especially delicious, in a totally ironic way, is a Mormon complaining about the redefining of marriage.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

You are free to disagree. However, if you have no proof of this "evil being" or that this slippery slope is directly caused by same sex marriage then it seems clear that your ideas on this subject or misdirected. You can encourage perfect families but you cannot force such families to exist. To be sure ....

I never made the claim that "same-sex marriage" caused this slippery slope.

It is definitely a symptom of said slope, but not it's cause. Satan is the cause and he has been attacking marriage and the family since the days of Cain, son of Adam.

The redefining of marriage is also a symptom of that slippery slope.

Marriage is a contract between men and women, so any same-sex coupling cannot be a marriage.

Claiming that their union is a "marriage" leads to more confusion in the rising generation.

Just as Satan wants.

have been a factor long before the LGBT community came out of the "closet".

Never claimed otherwise, but they have been on a significant rise since the Civil Rights movement.

In fact it is the demonizartion ("the evil being" )of these people that has caused much suffering.

Satan has caused nothing but suffering, which is his goal.

And his influence is not confined to any one group or type of people.

Would you try to beat the "gay" out of some one?

No, since Christ abhorred such acts of violence.

Besides, it would be a waste of time and effort and it would hurt all involved on some level.

The greatest "convincer" of truth and righteous living is the witness of the Holy Spirit which comes through sincere prayer and scripture study.

To quote from the Book of Mormon,

"And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God." (Alma 31:5)

Many "good christians" have tried.

That designation is debatable, considering their chosen course of action.

I wonder if God will give them a high five when they get to heaven for hurting these people?

Nothing leads me to believe that.

 

[Prestor John]

Same-sex marriage merely "redefines" one aspect of marriage. Throughout human history the various aspects of "marriage" have been quite variable. For example, marrying for love is a relatively recent concept. In many societies marriage was (or in some cases, still is) more about political power and money than love.

So the argument that "we can't change marriage" is historically ignorant.

Those marriages were still between men and women.

Also the idea that there have been no marriage for love until only recently is ridiculous.

An increase in freedom allows for more marriages of love rather than gain.

Just because there are fewer marriages for gain these days does not mean that there was any lack of marriage for love in history.

All marriages have been between men and women. To say otherwise is to be infected with historical ignorance.

 

[Prestor John]

What I find especially delicious, in a totally ironic way, is a Mormon complaining about the redefining of marriage.
Tom

Why is that?

 

[Jose Fly]

What I find especially delicious, in a totally ironic way, is a Mormon complaining about the redefining of marriage.
Tom

It's amazing how clueless some folks can be.

 

[Jose Fly]

Those marriages were still between men and women.

Also the idea that there have been no marriage for love until only recently is ridiculous.

An increase in freedom allows for more marriages of love rather than gain.

Just because there are fewer marriages for gain these days does not mean that there was any lack of marriage for love in history.

All marriages have been between men and women. To say otherwise is to be infected with historical ignorance.

Again, the sexes of those getting married is but one aspect of "marriage". Throughout human history there were (and in some cases still are) restrictions on marrying someone from a different economic or social class, or someone from a different religion, or someone from a different country, or someone of a different race. In most developed modern societies, those restrictions have been lifted. The restriction on marrying someone of the same sex has similarly been lifted.

Further, in just about all of those examples there were folks like you stomping their feet and shouting that the gods will be angry and punish us for allowing people to marry outside their class/religion/nationality/race. And just like today with same-sex marriage, your shouting and wailing is for naught, society moves on, and no punishment from the gods is forthcoming.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again, the sexes of those getting married is but one aspect of "marriage".

But the the mandatory nature of marriage being between men and women rather than same sex has absolutely been consistant without exception until the last decade or so. What we are doing now is utterly without precident. This has been true even in societies that have elevated homosexual activity.

Consider ancient Greece in which women were considered inferior, and love between men was considered superior to love between a love between a man and a woman. The ideal was the love between a man and a boy. Yet even though homosexuality was the ideal, it was not allowed for marriage. Marriage was for the creation of a family. Gay men were still expected to marry a woman and create children.

 

[Jose Fly]

But the the mandatory nature of marriage being between men and women rather than same sex has absolutely been consistant without exception until the last decade or so.

So?

What we are doing now is utterly without precident. This has been true even in societies that have elevated homosexual activity.

Every change to various aspects of marriage were "without precedent" at one point in time. I've never found "but it's always been this way" to be at all persuasive; the same is true for "the gods will be angry".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So?


Every change to various aspects of marriage were "without precedent" at one point in time. I've never found "but it's always been this way" to be at all persuasive; the same is true for "the gods will be angry".

If you make such a major change to an archaic institution, you had better be sure of what its ramifications are going to be on the culture, and the truth is, we have plowed ahead without even being concerned about this.

In our evolution, the cultural institution has undergone a NARROWING of natural behavior, not an expansion, as we reach for an ideal. For example, we have gradually disallowed incest. We are in the process as a species of disallowing polygamy and marriage with young girls. Gay marriage goes the opposite direction.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you make such a major change to an archaic institution, you had better be sure of what its ramifications are going to be on the culture, and the truth is, we have plowed ahead without even being concerned about this.

What "ramifications"?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What "ramifications"?

We haven't even sat down to think about it, have we?

Here is just one of a great many articles on the subject:

How Will Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Change Our Culture?

Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus discusses the potential consequences as the Supreme Court decides two landmark marriage cases.

 

[Jose Fly]

We haven't even sat down to think about it, have we?

Here is just one of a great many articles on the subject:

How Will Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Change Our Culture?

Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus discusses the potential consequences as the Supreme Court decides two landmark marriage cases.

Seriously? Regnerus? You need to cite a credible source.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Seriously? Regnerus? You need to cite a credible source.

You replied far to quickly to have read the article.

 

[Jose Fly]

You replied far to quickly to have read the article.

I'm familiar with Regnerus' work and how ridiculously fundamentally flawed it was.

You may as well have cited Kent Hovind in a discussion about biology.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Seriously? Regnerus? You need to cite a credible source.

Mark Regnerus is a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. His research is in the areas of sexual behavior, family, marriage, and religion.

He's EXACTLY the kind of expert we need for this discussion.

Ken Hovind is not a scholar. He is an evangelist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Mark Regnerus is a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. His research is in the areas of sexual behavior, family, marriage, and religion.

He's EXACTLY the kind of expert we need for this discussion.

Are you at all aware of the issues with his work on same-sex couples?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are you at all aware of the issues with his work on same-sex couples?

No. Are you aware of the issues with other researchers on same sex couples?

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

Then I suggest you take the time to educate yourself.

In the meantime, what specific "ramifications" do you believe we should be taking into account regarding same-sex marriage?

Are you aware of the issues with other researchers on same sex couples?

That's too vague to respond to.

 

[columbus]

We are in the process as a species of disallowing polygamy and marriage with young girls. Gay marriage goes the opposite direction.

Nonsense.

The Israelites of old didn't have a problem with youngsters marrying or polygamy.
And gay marriage is not going in the opposite direction.

I don't really care what scripture says about marriage. Marriage should be a mutually supportive, consensual, committed, exclusive, and permanent relationship between adults.

I see no reason to limit that to breeding pairs, as though humans are farm animals.
Marriage equality does NOT go in "the opposite direction", whatever that might mean.
Tom