An article that I've been working on for a few days to help your gay marriage debate.
this is mostly my own debate, except for the part about who invented marriage and it being bad for society.



     ~~~~~ The Problem With Gay Mariage ~~~~~
   
     What's wrong with gay marriage and

Why it's absurd.
   
     We as Christians have (or should be)
been against the notion to allow two individuals
to partake in the perverted, backwards, and mentally ill
action of being gay. And because we stand for what is right
(and non-ludicrous) we have met violent opposition.
We have fought against people who have traded in common
sense in the hopes of obtaining more rights, and to weaken the
moral power that the Bible once had over our country.
But friends, do not despair, I assure you, they will have their
reward. They wish to create a society that encourages disgraceful
behaviour (instead of preventing it and discouraging it) all in  the
name of liberty and individual rights. Yes, these same people who
supposedly strive for individual rights are also willing to put the rights
of the gay person before the normal person. It's true, if a gay person wants
to ride your trolley you can either give him the ride- or shut down your business.
Some have felt that to do the right thing, they must shut down their
business rather than serve a mentally perverted (gay) person, which
is commendable. We need to get our rights BACK, back from the people
who stole them. And we need to have good answers for those you ask:

"What's wrong with gay people?".

I want to help you answer that question.
Here is the ammo for your next debate.
   
     ~~~~~Why we are against gay marriage.~~~~~
   
     God says that it's wrong.

Pretty simple answer huh? It's an answer that an atheist
could care less for, and yet it means everything to a Christian.
(If it doesn't then something is REALLY WRONG).
It is listed as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22.
If someone tells you that the Bible doesn't really say
that being gay is wrong, just ask them if they always mangle the
scriptures when they read them.
God decides what's right and what's wrong, unlike man's, his morals never
change. God is the lawgiver, he supplies us with the definition of right and wrong.
Now, when God says it's wrong, wouldn't it be a good idea to not do it?
(Come on man, he made the universe in six days, last time I checked,
when you tried to make your own universe, you didn't get very far, and that's
all you knew about your universe).
God is a looooottttt smarter than you and I, he told people to wash their hands
before they eat, and sure enough, modern science can easily tell you just why he
he said that. We should obey his laws for our own good!
   
     It's not natural.

One notion used to justify gay marriage today is
that the people who are gay can't help it. So we
should just let them live that way as happily as possible.
However, if this is the case, then what evidence is there
to prove it? The burden of proof rests on your opponent.
People have gone from being gay to straight.
I would say that people choose to become gay.
They may try to show you evidence that being gay
just happens to people naturally, but you can remember
that any type of test that they might make was deliberately
made just to prove their point- not to find out if what they believe is
true or not.
But if that is true, then how come people have changed from
gay to straight?
You can have some fun with the people who believe
this, as they are suggesting that something is wrong with
a gay person's brain. The gays certainly don't want to be labeled
as mentally ill people. Yet in their arguments they might plead that
since their brain can't be fixed (it can, as mentioned earlier people have
gone from being gay to being straight) that you should just let them
live as happily as possible with their mental handicap.
However, if that is true, then that means that they have no place
In our government, after all, I hardly believe that your taste
in sex could be turned inside out without disastrously affecting other
things in you mind. If you don't believe me, then you should see how
some gay people act, very strange. I don't believe that becoming gay
happens naturally, I believe that it is chosen by oneself. If one can
go from being gay to being straight, then they certainly could have
messed up their own thinking and made themselves gay.
Besides, Why do they fight For gay marriage rights when they
could just start going straight? It's clearly perverted (I'll get to that later)
and it you're living a perverted lifestyle, then why keep living it?
Why play victim ("I'm gay because of my genes") when you
can correct the problem? Come on man, grab life by the horns.
Don't be a victim all your life. You'll get nothing done that way.
Nothing! You'll never achieve the life that you could have.
   
     Why should we encourage perverted thinking in our society?

By giving the gay people what they want, we are encouraging their behaviour.
Instead we should be discouraging the behaviour and start encouraging
them to become straight.
   
     Being gay is obviously perverted.

Think about what it really means to be gay- gross!
How badly do you have to mess your own brain up to turn your
sexual desires inside out? Gay people have mentally altered themselves
to the point to where they are the exact OPPOSITE sexually!

How perverted can you get?

"no, you're thinking about it wrong, you need to adjust your mind so that
you realize that being gay isn't so perverted, you're operating on bias alone"
Oh yeah? Why should I alter my mind and make it to where I accept the
perverted and fight the normal? No one should alter their mind to make the perverted
acceptable!

At this point you need to tell your opponent the following:

"You have yourself so open minded that you've accepted the perverted,
mentally sick, and absurd, as something that is just fine. You've become
so open minded that you've let your brain fall out! If something is perverted
then don't "reason" in your mind to make it acceptable!"

But wait a minute- we can't say that the opposition is so open minded
that they've let their brains fall out, that's wrong!
Well, if Jesus called the Pharisees snakes and vipers, I'm sure that
we can call our opposition what they really are. Some people avoid
using the word terrorist because it's not "politically correct". But I say enough
of this namby pambying around- call it what it is, but don't do it to irritate
your opponent, do it to bring them back to a sound mind.
You could end the debate right there, after all, you've shown
that your opponent doesn't even have a sound mind.
But some people are persistent, and you may have to go a
little farther.

The debate might travel along similar tracks that the morality debate
travels on. So one thing that you should remember is that atheists make
up their own morals to where as Christian's morals come from God.
Many atheists say that they decide morals by getting a bunch of people
together and discussing it. They may go by majority vote.
Ask your opponent if people should be able to marry bacon.
The probacon marriage people believe that they can't help their condition
etc. . . So they want the right to marry bacon. 92% of the people of the USA
want to legalize bacon marriage, and you have the power to make it legal.

Do you do it?

If they say no then they are a hypocrite for not doing what 92% of the people want.
If they say yes, then tell them that everyone in China and Britain is laughing at them
because of their show of pure lunacy!
Oh yeah, and if someone eats the bacon that someone else is married to, is it considered
murder? See how out of hand things are getting?
Now, if he tries to go into detail on why it isn't (or is) murder, interrupt him
immediately. Just say: "Sorry man, I like keeping my sanity" and end the debate right there.
   
     The Constitution

Our forefathers made the constitution to protect citizen's rights
from the government. The constriction basically say what the
government can and can't do.
Our opponents may try to use the constitution get
gay marriage rights. They will talk about the part that grants
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Using common sense here, should we be allowed to steal
because it brings us happiness?

"Oh, I have so much fun stealing, I love the thrill of not
getting caught!"

No, just because it's fun doesn't mean that you may do it.
You don't have the right to do something immoral.
Another thing to think about is

"Who wrote the constitution?"

A lot of them were Christians or had some belief in God.
In fact, it says in the constitution that "Rights come from our
Creator and are unalienable".

Our Creator does not list gay marriage as a right, but rather
as an abomination. Sorry, but whether you like it or not, our
forefathers di base the constitution off of the Bible. And they
knew that this country had to have a moral people in order
for the people to govern themselves.
   
     Who invented marriage?

After God created Adam, God stated "It is not good
for man to be alone". So God made Eve to be an help meet
to Adam. Then Adam said that it is for this reason that a man
shall leave his fathers house and cleave unto his wife and they
shall become one flesh.
God created marriage, and made some rules regarding how
sex should be treated. Many other pagan cultures around the nation
of Israel. Sex was treated pretty lightly in those countries, and as a
result the men got very irresponsible.

The progressives are not really "progressives".
They are really the "regressives" trying to return society
back into a country much like the heathen ones around Israel
back in the day.

The Israelites were practicing something very radical in their day.
But they followed a system where men were responsible,  
families could be raised, and children were not neglected.
Which leads us to. . .
   
     It's bad for society

If men can get sex without commitment, they can
get pretty out of control. Sex becomes something
that is casual, and is thrown all over the place.
Why raise and support a family when you can get sex
without having to do all of that work? Could this be why
some people are gay? Easy sex without children to take
care of? What if more people start thinking this way?
wouldn't it turn society into a place where children are no
longer raised in loving, productive families?
May we never encourage such laziness in our society!
Maybe that's how some people become gay. While going
through puberty they realize that no one could find out if
they had gay sex, VS straight sex, which risks pregnancy.
   
     ~~~~~Objections~~~~~
   
     But I have a gay family member, I don't want them to
be angry at me!

Short answer:
Boo hoo, that's their choice don't let them
pervert your thinking so that you accept what they
are doing as ok behavior.

Longer answer:
Don't buy the lie that you have to support gay marriage
rights just because you have a gay family member.
If you had a family member on drugs, you wouldn't
support them would you?
If you want to get them back on track, then you can try.
Ask them how they came by that conclusion, and refute it.
I'd recommend that you show them how perverted it is.
Is it not a sign of insanity?
Show them that people have gone from gay to straight.
Tell them not to settle for a perverted lifestyle, tell them
to grab life by the horns and fix it.
I don't know how easy it is to correct a gay person,
people usually won't change unless they want to.
I would probably not spend that much time with them at all
because it is so disgusting. Pray that they will get sick of the lifestyle
and come back to normalcy.

Oh, yeah, show them what the Bible says, also point out that you can't
go to heaven if you die in your sin. Eternity is a really long time!
   
     "You're being closed minded"

This was sorta answered earlier, basically what you should do is
point out that they have become so open minded that they've let their
brain fall out- making the perverted acceptable.
   
     "You'd have us go back to the Dark Ages!"

They are associating you with the Catholic Church.
Tell them that you and the Catholics are very different-
The Catholics believe that those of us with a protestant heritage
are damned.
   
     "Your being hateful"

Just say "Well you're being hateful of people like me!"
It goes both ways. You're not hateful of gay people, you just
want things to change for the better. You will not stand for
perversion in this country.
   
     ~~~~~Wrapping things up~~~~~

Basically, you'll want to press these four major points:
   
     1 Is it constitutional?
    2 Is it healthy to society?
    3 Is it moral?
    4 Gay people choose to be gay.

If you can answer these questions well, with
certainty, and can explain it, then you are well on your way.
I hope that this has been helpful to you, I didn't cover all of the points
that I could have but these should work well.
In your debate you probably shouldn't be as down to earth as I was, but
being blunt can help a little sometimes.
The best tools for any debate is common sense, patience
and prayer, That's how I've done it.

May God help you as you face the world.
Good luck!

Sword legion : Very interesting read. I perhaps wouldn't have been so (for lack of a better word) harsh, but overall I think I agree with what you said. Something I'd add to what you said, though, is the fact that people who are accepting of gay marriage and against those who are against it are actually quite close-minded. They don't even stop to consider the possibility that perhaps we're right. Being gay is not only harmful to society, it's harmful to the person as well. I'm not going to go any further with that at the moment.

Also, just want to make a point, many non-Christians are intolerant. Yep, that's right. They make a big deal of how intolerant we are towards people of other religions, which is being intolerant of us. Therefore, we shouldn't take what they say seriously if they don't practice what they preach. The only tolerant person is someone who never formulates an opinion (where they don't think they could be wrong) on anything. Why? Because if you have an opinion, then you're assuming someone else is wrong because they don't have the same opinion as you.

Wow, way off track. Anyway, I liked the bacon analogy.

I am happy to hear about a person who sticks to his convictions. (The word promise mean anything to people anymore?)

I have to say that I do not think that robbing any couple of a chance to hook-up is what the Church is against.
The church is merely against people telling them what their practices should allow on its own sacred ground.
Not many believers are hard-core Traditionalists.
BUT..
The Idea of a church promoting healthy behaviour and tradition has always been a cornerstone of a society.
The church used to take on poverty and many other misguided to give them a better path to walk.
Now, in many places, the Government has lifted these responsabilities from the church. (Churches still do their part. Only Their God Can Relieve them.)
Even used the court system to remedy or parallel the governing of two people creating a Union.

I am not opposed of the idea of sinful people creating a union.

I am opposed to the idea of sinful people telling the church what to do or claiming rights that is superceeded by their deity to begin with.

I am not very religious but I have a sense of right and wrong.
Telling people of faith that they give it up by decree of law is wrong.

I made a statement in another thread about requesting a new religion be discovered to accomodate the homosexual crowd and have new terms for the dictionaries and new places of worship be provided to Solve any and all of their problems.

I was insulted and mocked and just about everything else you can imagine.
It only reinforced a scruple I learned along time ago
"It takes a real man or woman to create something, Provide a solution, or Solve a problem."
Any child can complain.

Back to the discussion in hand?
I think it is high time a church or two stepped up to the plate of defending their rights.
The Church looked after the weak for so many centuries of history and now people are attempting to erase the Church from the history books due to it covering religion....
I am sickened.
I can not abide by modern politics to rewrite history and destroy an honest edjucation. We all are entitled to know the truth regardless of who is in charge and when and who's agenda it may or may not serve.
This is my Opinion and I am done with this headache of a topic for one day.
I wish everyone Luck Anyway. Thanks for the chance to discuss the topic.

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

Sword legion :  What we as Christians tend to forget is that homosexuality is just one branch of the deep rooted tree of sin.  We either viciously attack the branch and treat gay people as if they have an incurable, highly contagious disease.  We say:  "God hates gay people and you're going to hell!" Now that is just down right insensitive and cruel and you're not helping the situation at all.  On the other hand, you get Christians that is too sensitive about the issue and they rather not bring up the subject at all to avoid conflict.  If you know the way to forgiveness and everlasting life wouldn't you want to share that?  If not, then that would be very selfish no?  If you know your neighbors house is burning down while they are asleep, would you rather just leave them in peace and let them burn, or would you run out, kick down the door and shout at them to wake up, even drag them out?  God hates all sexual sin: adultery, fornication, homosexuality etc. God hates sin, period.  We have to remember that we as Christians also struggled with a particular sin and were totally lost before we came to Christ.   We all were born in sin, that's why you need to be "born again".  We shouldn't push homosexuals away and leave them to their own devices.  We have to reach them like any unbeliever.  If they are proud and stubborn, give them God's law that convicts of sin.  If they are humbled by the knowledge of their sin, then give them the good news of the gospel.  Remember God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

Sword: (I know you'll see this anyways, so no need to summon you) 
 
Excellent work! I saw you working so hard on this for the past three weeks, you put a lot of time and effort into it, good job.


SoL@R : That's why the christian standard (God's standard) is to love the person, and hate the sin. 
 
God does not love sin, but he loves US so much that he sent his son for us. 

 
mrfe : I don't think he was to harsh, even Jesus called the Pharasees Snakes, and Vipers for committing "lesser" sins.
 
.

bombchu link : When I said that I would've been less harsh, I was more referring to the comparing of gays to bacon. They are still people, though they've deceived themselves. Anyway...

Planning on writing another one?

Well, I didn't read through the whole thing because the formatting is a little annoying (and especially for such a long post!), but I have to say that right off the bat, I agree with some of what has been said in earlier posts.  While I agree that homosexuality is wrong, I think a lot of the phrases you used were a little harsh.

I also agree very much with what SoL@R said.  I think that society has become far too concerned with hurting people's feelings in the wrong areas, and then being far too sensitive in others.  It's almost as though much of society has decided that if someone commits murder (for example), we need to approach them gently in order not to hurt their feelings.  Sometimes, feelings -need- to be hurt to get a point across.  The bible talks about rebuking sin many times, and even Jesus flipped tables when he saw men doing wrong things.

However, I -do- think their is a line to draw. We must examine ourselves and our motives when we rebuke a certain sin, and we must be sure that the words we choose represent Christ, always.

What is wrong with gay marriage. According to you guys, god created all people. This would include homosexuals. So, why do you want to deny one of gods children a happy life?

I'm straight, and I have no gay family members. I have always thought that everyone deserves to be happy. If someone told you not to be happy, would you listen. I would say a few choice words and then do what I wanted.

come on

ender44 : Summon fail

Sword legion : I will read your thing soon and give my thoughts.

In my opinion I think people have a problem with gay marriage because now day's gay couples want to adopt kids and are basically going out in public showing display of affection toward members of the same sex and to be honest most people would find it sickening and stomach Turing and very hard to explain to their children if they are around and see that. Personally I have no problem with Homosexual's me being a Christian, but I don't think they should be allowed to adopted kids tho, simply because in my opinion that kid would have a less than perfect life outside of the home because think about a kid going to school but instead of having a dad and a mom, that kid would have a dad and a dad or a mom and a mom and having to sit through a sexual education class,  in my opinion that kid would be ridiculed and basically tortured outside the home by the rest of society  and would grow up sexually confused.

I read the original post, and I think it's very thought provoking indeed, but I have a difficult time thinking that your argument is very convincing in respect to actually affecting change. What you speak is the truth, but to win the hearts and minds of others, such a tone will not necessarily work. Rather, it is through love that people's hearts change. If you want to affect change, you must first love.

One of the most difficult things about this issue is that people misconstrue the concept of love in the first place. I stated in one of the first posts I put on this website, love is not merely an emotional state of being, as so many think. Love is an action and a way of life, but that isn't possible if people continue to identify themselves without knowing who they really are. That isn't possible if they do not look at others and care about them, even more so than themselves. I am convinced that you do not truly love a woman or a man if you do not put them above yourself, just as I do not believe that you do not truly love God if you do not put Him above yourself. By showing love, through being compassionate to others and caring about their well-being, you can affect the change that you so seek. This type of essay, while true it may be, will only serve to inflame malice, not ignite a moral spark. This is a learning process, of course, but it's important to know the difference.

However, I like a good discussion. I think it's healthy, and because I believe most of the users here are rational and capable of exhibiting strong arguments, I'm going to present a few things to you:

I like to play a "what if" game when I think of these scenarios. I put myself in the position of someone in government and try to argue based on what I would/could do if I was in those positions, given their job duties. So I'm going to tell you what I would do if I was in either position: If I was in a state legislature or was a Congressman and had to vote on whether or not I wanted gay marriage to be legalized, I would vote against it. However, if I was a Supreme Court Justice, that would be a different matter entirely, and this is important, as the legislative branch is designed to create the law and the judicial branch is meant to interpret it. This preface helps to present what I'm going to say.

I'll start as a legislator.

If I am to be in the position of law creation, then it is my right to introduce a bill or vote on a bill however I want to because I have been elected by my people to do so. It matters not if my constituency wants me to vote a certain way or not. All that matters is that because I am in the position, I can do what I need to. The important part to me is the fact that because they have elected me, they have elected me on my platform, on my values. If I tell them I'm a Christian and a conservative, and that I am going to vote against gay marriage, then I have every right to do so, even if the majority of my constituents are in favor of it. I do not have to provide a reason, just a "yes" or "no" vote when the bill comes up. If my voters do not like it, then it is their right to vote me out of office the next term. As such, if I had the power to create the law, I would vote in favor of banning same sex marriage, particularly because of the Christian views that I believe. Some might say, "religion and politics shouldn't mix," but the fact of the matter is that they always have throughout history. They might cry about "separation of church and state," but none of that matters. I am the legislator and I am in charge of my own person, and I am free to choose whatever side I want without having to provide reasons, at least until election time comes around. This is just a matter of fact.

The case of the Supreme Court is interesting. I would have to look at a variety of factors in judging the constitutionality of the bill presented before me. In fact, there are many different things we can look at in respect to gay marriage:

It can be considered a states rights issue and not one that should be a sweeping law that comes over the land, or it can be the reverse. The former can be true because of the 10th Amendment grants powers that aren't given to the federal government by the Constitution to the states. The latter can be true because the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV of the Constitution states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." As such, there is a lot to go by here.

I'm going to look at separation of church and state for a little bit. It can be argued that the Jeffersonian statement is paramount in interpreting the Constitution, considering the fact that the First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But the issue is that it merely expressed that Congress cannot make a law honoring an establishment of religion. Some interpret this as that Congress cannot establish a national religion, but some use this as an argument that government should have no role in religion. However, there are two major cases that need to be brought up.

Reynolds v. United States, 1878, upheld a law that disallowed a Mormon sect in Utah from practicing polygamy, which you know is the act of marrying many different people. Particularly, they upheld this part of the law: "Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years." This was a law that allowed the banning of a certain type of marriage (and made it to where a person's religion could not be used as a legal defense for breaking a law) which I believe would give credence to Proposition 8 that overwhelmingly passed in California before being overturned (which is now on its way to the Supreme Court). This is obviously a case of the state acting on the matter of religion, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

Everson v. Board of Education is another one of the "separation of church and state" cases that can be used to help shed some light on the government's role in religion. In Everson v. Board of Education, there was a law in New Jersey that granted parents of children who took public transportation to both public and private schools a reimbursement of the costs of the public transportation. The argument against this was on the grounds that the government's reimbursement of the parents constituted a violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clauses in the 14th and 15th Amendment, which state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. In the 14th Amendment, it specifically targets the state's role in this, saying that no state shall deprive people of these things without the due process of law. The objection came due to the fact that the majority of New Jersey's private schools were Catholic, but the ruling came that the law was upheld and the reimbursements came on the grounds that the parents were getting the money, not religious institutions. However, there is an important quote that came out of this case that has been quoted ever since:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

Well hello, there, Sally. So according to the rule of law, which is made permanent by the Supreme Court's decision unless overturned by Constitutional Amendment or another Supreme Court ruling, states that neither a state nor federal government can participate in religious organizations/groups, nor can religious organizations/groups participate in the affairs of the state or federal government.

This means that there's a lot of Constitutional Violations going on... But that's another debate!

What this means for the gay marriage discussion is that the government should not meddle in the affairs of religion (why hasn't this been used in the case of the Affordable Care Act?), and religious institutions cannot meddle in the affairs of the government (lobbyists somewhat break that). So we come to the jurisdiction of marriage, the ultimate prize in this debate.

Let me ask you: What is marriage?

Marriage is a union between two people which establishes rights and obligations to each other and to their children. The practice of marriage has been around since the beginning, its backgrounds rooted since Adam and Eve (and even if you want to deny Adam and Eve, religious ceremonies of matrimony have been practiced for many, many years). As a result, I would argue that marriage belongs to religion, when you look at it from a law standpoint. Even before the Constitution was written, people were getting married under Biblical guidelines. In fact, it was not just a Biblical matter, but other religions as well. And there was a common thing amongst all these religions - they were between a man and a woman.

So what? Times change and people change! That may be the case, but my argument is that the act of banning or legalizing gay marriage is not in the jurisdiction of the government to decide, but rather, the religious institution should have the full rights as to whether or not they should recognize the marriage. The government's only role in this, by the standards of today, should be tax-based (although I think a simplified tax code would eliminate this). That being said, according to this line of logic, if a church chooses to marry a gay couple, they should be allowed to. But no church should be forced to marry anyone against its will, because by doing so, you are violating the will of the church and its congregation and infringing on its First Amendment rights. Furthermore, with this logic, homosexuals could create their own religion and marry within the confines of that religion... but don't expect it to last long (see the Shakers religious movement if you want to know why).

So as a Christian, you are saying that if you were a Supreme Court Justice, you would essentially rule in favor of gay marriage? Not so fast! Remember that first case we just discussed? Reynolds v. United States? That case allowed for the banning of polygamy, despite it being a religious institution claiming that it was within their First Amendment rights to practice it. Because of the precedent set by this case, I believe that it is possible that gay marriage could be banned by a state and upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, look at Proposition 8 in California, a law banning the practice of gay marriage. This highly controversial referendum was voted on by the public of California, with the majority voting for the ban. A judge, who in all likelihood was not impartial to the case (there were reports that he was gay), ruled it unconstitutional on the basis that it violated Due Process. However, because of the precedent set by Reynolds v. United States, I would argue that it can be banned if a state chooses to do so. It can even be argued that it doesn't violate due process, but that would depend on where the court defines the ban in respect to life, liberty, and property (interesting that it's not the pursuit of happiness found in the Declaration of Independence, isn't it? That might be another story). It does not infringe on life, nor does it infringe on property (unless the passing of property was outlawed, which I do not know of one state that is arguing against gay couples having that sort of right). It might violate "liberty," but liberty is dictated in the confines of the law, and one person's liberty cannot infringe on the rights of another. This further proves that no religious institution should be required to marry homosexuals against its will (which there have been instances in which churches are being pressured into marrying gay couples even if they disagree with it), but it leaves up in the air the question of whether or not it should be banned.

Ultimately to me, the answer is up to the state, and I hope the Supreme Court recognizes that.

Something I think we do need to understand is that while we are Christians and we follow the Bible, our country is not a theocracy and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the Bible. I believe we were founded on Biblical principles, but I do not think this is enough to restrict people from doing certain things unless the states choose to do so (and as long as they do not violate the Constitution).

I'm going to turn to Ender44: for a moment and discuss his question.

God created all people, yes. However, the way He defines us and the way we define us are two separate things.

Whereas we (as a human species) might define ourselves as straight, gay, Alabama Crimson Tide Fan or lumberjack, God does not attribute these aspects to us. They simply are not important, and that's true. We should not define ourselves as anything but who we are, and we are not the gender that we prefer or the job that we do. We are, in fact, the people of God, and we do our best to represent Him in such a way that brings Him glory. As a result, our opposition to gay marriage is not one that intends to deny one of God's children a happy life, but rather it is a plight to prevent the dishonoring of our God.

The problem with your argument is in the respect of happiness. If happiness is the end, then should the means to that end matter if it's immoral? If the answer is "no," then you are saying that it is okay for a serial killer to kill if he or she is happy doing so, or you are saying that it is okay for people to traffic children on the basis of their happiness. I'm pretty sure nobody but maybe the serial killers and child traffickers agree with those statements, so the idea is that there are some conditions that must be kept, moral ones. Our morals are that of Christianity, and because the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, we see it as immoral. Thus, the end of happiness should not be attained if the means is immoral, and that is where our (or at least my) opposition of homosexuality lies in respect to happiness.

That being said, no Christian should ever condemn a person who calls themselves homosexual, because it is not the person we are against, but the expansion of the perversion that sin brings to the table. We love them regardless of what they do because they are not what they do. They are who God says they are, and even if they do not know who God says they are, we do. We have the Bible.

Ok...  I am going to try and keep my cool when I type this but their is no guarantee.

I myself am a bisexual male.  Its not something that you choose.  It has to do with genetics.  There IS EVIDENCE that supports this.  You are claiming that we choose to be this way... and that all tests that prove it were made to prove our point.  This is a ridiculous claim.  People who have "gone from being gay to straight"  are still gay on the inside.  They may have learned to avoid the fact, and have learned to like the other gender, but they will always be gay on the inside because that is how their brain was born.  Its not something you can just get rid of.

You also seem to think that gay people do not belong in the USA.  BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE USA WAS NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY.  Claiming that because being gay is a "mental disability" and that "it means they have no place in our government".  So you are telling me that if you have a mental disability that you do not belong here?  Maybe I don't want to change.  Maybe I am not a "victim".  I can achieve many things without having to be straight, which your mind probably can't even comprehend. "How badly do you have to mess your own brain up to turn your sexual desires inside out?"  You can not choose to be gay or not, as I have stated already.  If god created people, and he hates gays, why would he create gay people?  You say that people are being absurd when they say it is natural, but you have NO PROOF THAT SUPPORTS THIS.  On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that your sexuality can be altered by genes.

Sorry if I offend anyone with this,  but I would rather weigh my beliefs on scientific facts then believing in something that has absolutely no proof at all.  You probably think I am gross and perverted because I am not straight, but personally, I think you are the one who is gross.  You are hating on people of a different sexuality because a book with no evidence told you to.  Besides, Jesus Christs main teaching was to accept EVERYONE.  You call yourself a christian?

"You don't have the right to do something immoral."  Well theft is against the law, it isn't just immoral.  Is being gay against the law?  Absolutely not.

metroidhunter72 :

God calls it an abomination, and a sin.
That is what God said, not me.

What proof? Would you post it here?
Even if it's true it needs to be changed.
God does not require undoable actions.
People who have gone from being gay to being straight are now straight, not gay.
They grabbed life by the horns.

Yes the USA was founded on Christianity.

Yes I am blunt and to the point, I want to change things, not beat my way around the bush and
just tell people what is needed to be said.

The burden of proof is not on me- the default position of a persons actions is based on choice.
Evidence is required to prove otherwise.

People have gone from gay to straight.
That is my evidence.

If you're talking about people that have male and female organs then surgery is the best option, and 
the claiming of 
Gods promises in the Bible. 

By our stripes he was healed.

orionfoxgibson :

I don't think that have the Gays make their own religion would be a good idea
because the religion would just be a "political convenience" Like the Roman religion.

The religion would offer not truth and would save no one from hell.


Let's say that their is a group of ten people.

three of them got sick.

There are two doctors that we can call.

One says that he can fix the problem by quarantining the sick people from the healthy people.
The three individuals can turn to each other for comfort and company.
They will be separated from the others the rest of their lives


The other says that he can give the sick people medicine and heal them.
Everyone can get back together and the sick individuals are now normal. 


I perceive that you are a smart individual, I bet that you could find a solution like the second doctors.

This subject is full of headaches huh?

Sword legion : Here's the biggest thing about wanting to change things. You cannot change things by taking such a hard-line stance and being blunt to them. Bluntness might work when you have a relationship with a person, like a brother or a best friend, but being blunt to a stranger more often than not will cause serious problems. Especially in the event that you have a controversial topic, it is vital that you state your position respectfully. Otherwise, you will only anger people, and that is not the way to get anyone into the kingdom. The only way to do that is through love, and I'm not talking about "tough love." The way I see it, I can't go up to a gay couple I don't know and tell them that they're walking in sin, when five minutes earlier I did a double-take at a girl in a low-cut shirt. We all sin, even if we are saved. That's the weakness of our flesh and our soul.

The difference is that we walk with Jesus, so our identity is found in Him. Most homosexuals identify themselves through their sexuality, saying that it is a part of who they are. Thus, they think we are perpetrating an attack on their identity, even if we don't mean it that way, or even if we don't agree. There's a saying my brother learned in the Marine Corps: "Perception is reality." If you are dumping a canteen of water out by your hip and your drill instructor happens to be at an angle where it looks like you're taking a leak, you're taking a leak. No questions asked. In this case, it's true. Their identity isn't really found in their sexuality, but their perception is that it is, therefore it is true to them. And though we might not think we are attacking who they are, they perceive it to be that way, therefore it's true. We must be more careful.

I want to say one thing about the scientific discussion on homosexuality, and this is important for everyone to read: There has been no scientific proof that homosexuality is or isn't a biological factor. There is evidence for it, and there is evidence against it, but it has not been proven. Nobody here at this point in time is going to be able to prove either side, so you can debate whether or not it is biological all you want, but it's not going to change anything. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is biological, it is still a sin, just as a testosterone-fueled guy having sex with women outside of wedlock is a sin. That's certainly a biological problem, isn't it?

I want to make one more point to you, Sword legion. I think you're a pretty swell guy, so I don't want you thinking I'm coming at you or anything. I'm not. I just want to help out, because I can see the passion in you that is to see people free. Unfortunately, the methodology is probably going to do the opposite. When you spoke of the "burden of proof" being on him, I'm going to disagree with that, even though you were simply talking about the biological aspects of things. The burden of proof is on us, but it isn't to disprove anything that he is saying. The burden of proof is on us because we are evidence of God's glory and transformation power. The way we live our lives is how we are going to prove to others that God's way is the way, not through the words we speak. The way we love others is how we are going to affect change. Even if we have the best argument, unwavering evidence, and unprecedented passion, we will not attract people to our plight if we do not love others. That's more important than anything else: Love God with all of our hearts and love unto others as we love ourselves. There is no caveat to that saying, "but you don't have to love homosexuals because they want to get married." It is simply what it is, and Jesus Himself said they were the two most important commandments to keep.

ender44 : then why would God create homo's if he said that it is a clear abomination? 
 
 And also if homo's are allowed to run around, look at the next step. polyganism, (multiple wives) beastuality (sex with animals). ect, ect., ect. That is what happened to Sodom, that is what happened to Various third world countries. And look where they are now, in ruins and are a poor society.

bombchu link : Hey, now. I thought this was the Conservative Christians board, not the Let's troll the people who are ideologically opposed to our views board.

How is calling them "homos" helping at all? All that does is prove to them that we are intolerant! What in the world is going through that noggin of yours, man? If you want to argue about gay marriage, you take a legal stance, because that's the only leg we actually have to stand on when it comes to whether or not it will be legalized. You can't say, "Well, God says homosexuality is a sin" to a homosexual and expect that person to receive what you're saying. You can't say "well, God says homosexuality is a sin" and expect that to stand in front of the Supreme Court. That's asinine!

Also, the slippery-slope argument and the Sodom/third world argument isn't strong at all. If you're not discussing things with a Christian, what happened at Sodom doesn't even matter to them. You're not going to change their mind in that way. And if you look at third world countries, there are numerous circumstances that cause third world countries to be third world, not necessarily the issue of marriage. Do you think that Libya or North Korea allow the practice of gay marriage? Negative. So the third world argument is weak.

But seriously, dude, you can't be calling them "homos." They aren't homos, they're people. Acting like that is absolute nonsense. You want it to stop? LOVE PEOPLE. Bring them into the kingdom! Allow the HOLY SPIRIT to convict them and change them! That isn't our responsibility, so stop trying to take it on your shoulders because you're doing a bad job of it.

pray75 : you seem to put Man's laws in front of God's laws, that's backward thinking. 
 
 God said NO so that's final, it doesn't matter if it's legal of not. 
 
 And God says to love them and not the sin. like you said, but your being WAY to serious about this, this is a discussion for heavens sake, not a war.

bombchu link : I would second what pray75 actually said. I think it is more complicated than how you put it. Also, the way you projected your statements are inappropriate. I would actually put called them "homos" in a demeaning way the same crudeness of calling something gay when it has nothing to do with sexuality. Please be mindful with how you say things.

Sword legion :

The Mention of A new found religion for a particular section of people is something I have learned from school to adulthood.

Many may follow but very few will cling to it. Permanately.

Cults and various college level subjects suffer the same... "stigma". (My sister with her Feminist Classes. Thank God She Grew Out Of That.)

In a way... the problem solves itself.

The person will grow a distaste for "the Bull" and find a new path or become neutral to whatever cause the new cult might persue.

You stating that I am smart means nothing if I can not teach a trick or two to anyone else.
(Many of my family are instructors retired from another profession. Merely Meaning Arguements at the Dinner Table can get Interesting from time to time.)

Kinda like Following a trend. For some it stays. For Most??? They abandon it after it has served it's purpose.

Stay Loose, Keep the Faith, and Hang On.
"Life is fun if you can learn how to hear the tune it plays. Then Learn to Dance with it".(A Lovely Poet from my past.)

Make Note of the insults I got on the former thread.
Why be opposed to the idea???
What do I threaten by giving them what they want?

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.