Starkey said:
...but relationships with children are forbidden because, in one sentence, their mind and body are not ready for it...
Bingo. And society is not "ready" for the consequences of allowing for the legality of gay marriage. Nor should it be. If you want a warning, look at ancient Rome.
Lynx said:
I'm sorry to report that you actually sound like Senator Rick Santorum.
From your point of view homosexuality is comparable to murder, terrorism etc. YOU think it is a crime, at least you sound very much like it. This post shows your ignorance and prejudice.
...And a chain reaction like you described wouldn't happen since this is one issue which many people care about. ...In what way could this actually endanger the state?
...The point of the church is strange indeed. The pope says that we should respect homosexuals and not discriminate against them, but at the same time he voices his concern about gay marriages and gayness in general. It's like the church says "You are a very bad person, but we don't damn you to hell for it."
...I`m interested in
which way gay marriages would actually hurt or weaken the institution of marriage and family or lead to the other than hurting the worldview of several people?...Could you enlighten me please?
(1) Thank you. From what little I know of him, Santorum seems like a standup guy (as far as
politicians go, anyway). As to your comment, homosexual acts are comparable to the others you cited, in that they all are immoral human behaviors. I do not think it is a crime, but in its immorality, it is most certainly a sin (and all 3 major monotheistic religions, in the main, agree on this). If standing
for that which is upright, and standing
against that which is wrong/immoral/unethical is "prejudiced", as you say, then I gladly plead guilty.
(2) It is my fervent prayer that you are right on this point. I have no doubt that the chain reaction I outlined WOULD, indeed, happen; rather, the fact that so many people "care about" this issue might be the one thing that prevents it (gay marriage) from ever being realized in the first place. I already outlined how this would adversely affect the state; I'll not repeat myself: go read it again. I will point out, though, the old adage that "as the family goes, so goes the nation". An excellent example of this would be the deterioration of the Roman Empire from their glory days. It was the very corrupting effects of rampant immorality (and its effect on the family) that caused the empire to crumble from within.
(3) The church's stance is really not that strange at all. It comes down to good old Christian compassion: Just as Jesus had compassion & forgiveness on prostitutes & tax collectors, so we also should be with people caught in any other kind of sin/sinful lifestyle. Yet you'll notice that Jesus never condones the thievery and corruption of the tax collector, nor the immorality of the prostitute. Indeed, he speaks quite firmly against all of these, as they are sin. This is commonly summarized by the old adage "hate the sin, love the sinner".
(4) Actually, Farlander answered this last point of yours rather well, so I refer you to his post on that.
Napoleon said:
....because the scientific evidence says that homosexuality is based on genetics and not choice...
D'oh!
::Napoleon wakes up & smells the coffee, schmacks self in forehead using famed "V-8 maneuver" ::
steampunk said:
It is very sad that so many people here are prejudice. Especially the ones who say "Let them be gay. Away from me."...
No, what's sad is that people like yerself are ignorant to the fact that there are certain prejudices that we humans routinely and rightfully exercise. Most fathers, for example, wouldn't let their teen daughters date a guy who's done time for rape; most people wouldn't invest their money with a broker who's been nabbed for fraud; most would not hire an alcoholic to drive a truck, etc. Prejudice in itself is a normal healthy human phenomena, as I just illustrated. The problem comes in when prejudice is applied wrongly. As to your illustration, blacks did not, of course, choose their color. Therefore such a prejudice is/was unwarranted. Exercising your gay orientation or not, on the other hand, most definitely IS a choice (and a moral choice at that). As such, when one persistently chooses to do that which is immoral, others are right to be "prejudiced" against you (This applies, by the way, as much to the person who has an "alternate lifestyle" of cheating on their spouse, "shacking up" with a boyfriend/girlfriend outside of marriage, or is a compulsive gambler, etc., not just gays).
BTW, to clarify, Christ was killed by the Romans, who in turn were asked to do so (or more precisely, they were threatened into doing it) by the corrupt Jewish religious leadership of the day (as opposed to the Jewish *people* per se - that is, the average Jew on the street.). There is absolutely no basis for a conscientious Christian to hold any prejudice whatsoever against Jews. As Christ Himself said from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". This very statement forbids any possible room for prejudice in the Christian heart. The fact that Nazis or the KKK could take & conveniently ignore this fact speaks to the corruption of the human heart more than anything else.
