The Supreme Court refuses to block gay marriages

[tiger88 934]

And on what basis would you protest it?

I just don't think that children are developmentally ready to be exposed to that kind of thing. I taught school for a year and had mostly 7-11th graders. The 7th graders looked more like 3rd or 4th graders than junior high students to me, while the 8th graders showed a remarkable difference. The thought of a homosexual pedophile preying on someone that young makes me ill.

There aren't any sane people imo who would argue that it's ok to have sex with an infant or a toddler. Anyone who would argue for 12 or under is disturbed in some way imo. The real question is where do you feel the age of consent should fall. I feel like 16 is as close as you can get to what is proper. I don't really like the idea of some 30 year old hitting on a 16 year old, but....

For the record homosexuality is wrong and unnatural imo. I wish there was some way to make the age for homosexual consent higher than 16 while leaving heterosexual consent higher, but I guess thats a hard thing to do.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

It makes me ill too, but to hear some of the "touching" stories on NAMBLA and other sites like it, there is such a thing as legitimate, caring, sexual contact between an adult and a child. To them, it isn't about "forcing" or "preying" upon the kids, it's about possibly showing love, affection, and physical intimacy to a child that desperately needs it. If you think I'm kidding, brace yourself, maybe take a shot of whiskey, and go read some of their stories.

To my mind, we do have to be wary of the "give an inch, take a mile" danger. The number is arbitrary as to when we set age of consent. It's not set in stone anywhere. It's just a matter of public will. But attitudes change and society has proven, especially over the last 50 years or so, to be more than willing to cast off restraint when they so desire. And I believe, with each and every historical moral standard we decide to do away with as a society, the resistance is lowered to future toying with our societal ethical and moral codes.

[Tiger Al 0]

It makes me ill too, but to hear some of the "touching" stories on NAMBLA and other sites like it, there is such a thing as legitimate, caring, sexual contact between an adult and a child. To them, it isn't about "forcing" or "preying" upon the kids, it's about possibly showing love, affection, and physical intimacy to a child that desperately needs it. If you think I'm kidding, brace yourself, maybe take a shot of whiskey, and go read some of their stories.

To my mind, we do have to be wary of the "give an inch, take a mile" danger. The number is arbitrary as to when we set age of consent. It's not set in stone anywhere. It's just a matter of public will. But attitudes change and society has proven, especially over the last 50 years or so, to be more than willing to cast off restraint when they so desire. And I believe, with each and every historical moral standard we decide to do away with as a society, the resistance is lowered to future toying with our societal ethical and moral codes.

Gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not about pedophilia. This is a red-herring.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not about pedophilia. This is a red-herring.

Someone dry this wet hen off. This is a tangential issue that me and tiger88 are discussing. I've already made the consenting adults caveat earlier in the thread. This is a more general discussion of how society's moral standards change over time.

[Tiger Al 0]

Gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not about pedophilia. This is a red-herring.

Someone dry this wet hen off. This is a tangential issue that me and tiger88 are discussing. I've already made the consenting adults caveat earlier in the thread. This is a more general discussion of how society's moral standards change over time.

Yes, but this is where the discussion went the last time we had it. That, and polygamy and beastiality and other forms of nonsense that were posed as 'reasons' to not allow what I prefer to call civil unions.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Your objection to the direction is duly noted and was previously addressed in the thread. However, pedophila and homosexuality are in the same general category of "sexual issues" that society historically has seen as morally wrong, thus this discussion.

And while I agree that there are some degrees of separation between "civil unions" and pedophilia, I don't agree that polygamy or incest are very far removed in kind at all, as long as all parties are consenting adults.

[Tiger Al 0]

I understand that. I see the trap being laid, though!

[TitanTiger 21,064]

It's not a trap, Al. I genuinely would like to hear some answers to this and I don't think I've ever heard a good one. Most answers consist of the "that's preposterous" or "that will never happen" arguments, neither of which have any basis in fact nor give me much comfort. I think human beings have an infinite capacity to justify any behavior, given enough time and erosion of morality.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Here's an article that does a pretty good job of articulating some of the things I've been asking:

Was God wrong?

Rebecca Hagelin

May 19, 2004

For the first time in America's great history, same-sex marriage is legal within our borders. It's time we ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" For far too many, this basic question has been missing from the debate over the redefinition of marriage.

Advocates of preserving traditional marriage, myself included, have argued that the fundamental building-block of every single civil society in the world throughout history has been marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman – all societies that have veered from this definition eventually vanished

Social-science data proves men, women and children are healthier, safer, better educated, more economically sound, more emotionally stable and happier when they live within the bonds of traditional families that include one mother and one father.

To change the basic building block of society would result in radical changes in every other aspect of our lives. For example, consider the exercise of free speech and the freedom of religion in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003. On April 28, 2004, Bill C-250 passed the Canadian Senate making it a criminal offense to criticize homosexuality. The government has already started banning radio programs containing criticisms of the lifestyle. Depending on how the Canadian courts rule in specific cases, pastors could be thrown in jail by simply preaching sermons against homosexuality.

Evidence from the Netherlands illustrates that when the definition of marriage is altered, people begin to shrug their shoulders at the concept of marriage altogether and see it as unnecessary – since same-sex marriages became legal in Norway, for example, 80 out of 100 babies in some areas of the country are now born to single mothers...

...Also, who determines where the line is now drawn? If two men can marry, can two brothers marry each other? Or two heterosexual widows? If gender doesn't matter, why does it have to be between "two" people? Why not three or more? Can a group of people sharing a house decide to marry each other so that all may enjoy the legal benefits? Where does it end? Why should it matter?

We have correctly raised all of these issues and more in our defense of marriage. But the basic question we must raise – the only one that really matters – is: "Was God wrong?"

Our opposition tells us that we can't bring religion or God into the picture, that to do so would be to force our moral beliefs on others.

Yet, the only argument that the same-sex marriage crowd makes is couched in moral terms – "It is immoral," they say, "to deny two people who love each other the right to marry." It's the only argument they have, and it is entirely based on their view of right and wrong....

The advocates of same-sex marriage say they believe in God – most seek to invoke His name in their marriages. I say it's time for everyone to stop – stop and ask ourselves: "Was God wrong?" God's definition of marriage is clearly defined in the account of His creation of this basic human relationship in Genesis 2: 22-24:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Was God wrong in creating woman and man for each other? Was he wrong when he established marriage as the institution in which children are to be born?

God's design for marriage is the only one that matters. The evidence – much of which has been provided in this column – also proves that God's design for marriage is the only one that works for mankind...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rebecca...h20040519.shtml

[channonc 466]

I don't think gay marriage has any real affect on my marriage, your marriage or anyone else's marriage. If 2 people love each other, why can't they legally be defined as marriage.

This "slippery slope" that many keep referring to, in my opinion, simply doesn't exist.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

I don't think gay marriage has any real affect on my marriage, your marriage or anyone else's marriage. If 2 people love each other, why can't they legally be defined as marriage.

This "slippery slope" that many keep referring to, in my opinion, simply doesn't exist.

And I think you're dreaming. If you don't think every kink in the free world is waiting in the wings for the right moment to make their argument for their "rights" to marry in whatever perverted fashion they want, then I just don't know what to say. The polygamists have been beating on the door for decades. The "slippery slope" comes in when you open up the definition of "marriage" or its secular synonym, "civil union" based on some amorphous "right" to marry.

Can you explain to me what kind of legitimate argument can be made for redefining marriage from "one man/one woman" to "two women" or "two men", yet not continuing to redefine it down the road? What would you counter with to the argument that it needs to be redefined to include "three women and one man" or "2 men and 3 women" (group marriage), or "two brothers" (double whammy...homosexual AND incest and no possibility of procreation).

I just fail to understand where this enormous amount of faith in the line going no further comes from.

[tiger88 934]

I just don't see why you worry about it so much. For the most part what is gonna happen is gonna happen. I say have faith in your religion and your salvation and let the rest of the world worry about theirs. Let God do whatever judging there is to be done. Most of the major wars and headaches in this world have been caused by one group trying to force its religious beliefs on another, period.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Because, tiger88, as Christians we aren't called to just "live and let live" on each and every issue. We're called to be influencial in the world. We're called to be a preserving and enlightening influence on society in whatever sphere we find ourselves...family, community, school, business, government, etc. This is one of the aspects of the "salt and light" analogy that Christ used. This stuff matters to God, therefore it matters to me. I can't sit by, in a participatory, representative democracy and not voice support for measures that align with God's principles and opposition to those that do not.

Have Christians done a good job of this at all times? Hardly. Do they sometimes have the right view on something but a terrible way of communicating it? Absolutely. But we do the best we can and should not shrink from our calling because of past failings or a societal slide toward "virtually anything goes" morality.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It is however very disturbing to me to see that a supreme court justice is of this opinion. I think the age of legal consent is fine where it is at and you already have enough pedophiles going after underage kids as it is. Lower the age to twelve and imo it would only encourage them more (for kids under twelve as well). If there was ever a serious movement to change the age to 12 if there was anyway possible, I would participate in protests against it either in person or however.

why worry about it so much? For the most part what is gonna happen is gonna happen

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Most of the major wars and headaches in this world have been caused by one group trying to force its religious beliefs on another, period.

I would ask for some proof of this statement. Not to say there haven't been many wars and conflicts over religious differences, but "most"? I'd say most wars were fought over land, economic resources, and power if I were to venture a guess. Let's list a few conflicts:

Vietnam: a war about containing communism

Korea: ditto

WWII: Germany, Japan and Italy started this over, you guessed it, land, economic resources, and power.

WWI: Germany heads up another cadre of ne'er do wells in a quest for land, economic resources, and power.

American Civil War: succession by the Southern states started it. This was a war over preserving the Union, slavery, and economic clout.

Spanish-American War: a war primarily over land.

Revolutionary War: a war over the right to self-government or at least representation in the existing government, as well as land, economic resources and power.

And those are just the major American conflicts. What about others?

We have:

Numerous wars between England and France over power and economic resources.

Wars between Japan and mainland countries like China and Korea over similar issues.

Wars (skirmishes really) between the Soviets and the numerous Eastern European countries they gobbled up under Communism (a particularly virulent atheist form of it no less).

Numerous conflicts in Central and South America between communists and others.

I don't recall the Roman Empire being built to its greatest glory on the basis of forcing a religion on anyone. It was about imperialism, power, and greed.

Ditto on the Greek empire of Alexander the Great.

Ditto on the Babylonian Empire.

Have there been religious conflicts? Certainly. There are the Crusades...but even it was more about controlling a parcel of land than religion. There are the Muslim expansions in the 7th-12th centuries. Skirmishes between Christians and Muslims in Africa and Bosnia and Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland (although a deeper look would reveal that those conflicts are only tangentially related to religious differences...more about political differences). There are others.

What about other headaches that weren't truly wars?

Sure, there were the Salem witch trials, the persecution of Protestants, the persecution of heretics in Calvin's Geneva, and the Inquisition. But dwarfing all of those we have:

Stalin's murder of millions of people coming from a completely godless philosophy.

Pol Pot's slaughter of millions of people opposing communism in Cambodia...again from an atheist dictator.

Mao's slaughter of millions of Chinese for the same reasons as above...again from an atheist dictator.

Hitler's slaughter of Jews, the disabled, retarded, and homosexuals...not for any religious reasons whatsoever, but rather his maniacal pursuit of a spotless, "master race".

My point is, I see this tired old line trotted out whenever a religious person dares to insert their moral views into political debate (as if no one else is appealing to their own personal morality in their argument), but it's time it's laid to rest for good. It's a strawman at best and a complete fabrication at worst.

[DKW 86 7,866]

It makes me ill too, but to hear some of the "touching" stories on NAMBLA and other sites like it, there is such a thing as legitimate, caring, sexual contact between an adult and a child.  To them, it isn't about "forcing" or "preying" upon the kids, it's about possibly showing love, affection, and physical intimacy to a child that desperately needs it.  If you think I'm kidding, brace yourself, maybe take a shot of whiskey, and go read some of their stories.

To my mind, we do have to be wary of the "give an inch, take a mile" danger.  The number is arbitrary as to when we set age of consent.  It's not set in stone anywhere.  It's just a matter of public will.  But attitudes change and society has proven, especially over the last 50 years or so, to be more than willing to cast off restraint when they so desire.  And I believe, with each and every historical moral standard we decide to do away with as a society, the resistance is lowered to future toying with our societal ethical and moral codes.

Gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships are not about pedophilia. This is a red-herring.

Take any issue or position that was used to mainstream Gay Rights and it works for Pedophilia too. BTW, I am not talking about just male-to-male sex either, I am talking about man to girl etc, which is where I see the explosion coming from this.

Homosexuals are great artists. So are Pedophiles.

Homosexuality is found in ancient texts. So is Pedophilia.

Homosexuality is found in History. So is Pedophilia.

Homosexuality is found in a certain % segment of all socities. So is Pedophilia.

Discrimination against Homosexuality is wrong. So is discrimination against Pedophilia.

Homosexuals are among the greatest minds in the World. So are Pedophiles.

ETC.

[tiger88 934]

It is however very disturbing to me to see that a supreme court justice is of this opinion. I think the age of legal consent is fine where it is at and you already have enough pedophiles going after underage kids as it is. Lower the age to twelve and imo it would only encourage them more (for kids under twelve as well). If there was ever a serious movement to change the age to 12 if there was anyway possible, I would participate in protests against it either in person or however.

why worry about it so much? For the most part what is going to happen is gonna happen is gonna happen

It was very disturbing, I left most of that emotion behind shortly thereafter and haven't lost a wink of sleep over it. Is that hard for you to understand?

Would you like some help removing that chip off your shoulder?

[tiger88 934]

Most of the major wars and headaches in this world have been caused by one group trying to force its religious beliefs on another, period.

I would ask for some proof of this statement. Not to say there haven't been many wars and conflicts over religious differences, but "most"? I'd say most wars were fought over land, economic resources, and power if I were to venture a guess. Let's list a few conflicts:

Vietnam: a war about containing communism

Korea: ditto

WWII: Germany, Japan and Italy started this over, you guessed it, land, economic resources, and power.

WWI: Germany heads up another cadre of ne'er do wells in a quest for land, economic resources, and power.

American Civil War: succession by the Southern states started it. This was a war over preserving the Union, slavery, and economic clout.

Spanish-American War: a war primarily over land.

Revolutionary War: a war over the right to self-government or at least representation in the existing government, as well as land, economic resources and power.

And those are just the major American conflicts. What about others?

We have:

Numerous wars between England and France over power and economic resources.

Wars between Japan and mainland countries like China and Korea over similar issues.

Wars (skirmishes really) between the Soviets and the numerous Eastern European countries they gobbled up under Communism (a particularly virulent atheist form of it no less).

Numerous conflicts in Central and South America between communists and others.

I don't recall the Roman Empire being built to its greatest glory on the basis of forcing a religion on anyone. It was about imperialism, power, and greed.

Ditto on the Greek empire of Alexander the Great.

Ditto on the Babylonian Empire.

Have there been religious conflicts? Certainly. There are the Crusades...but even it was more about controlling a parcel of land than religion. There are the Muslim expansions in the 7th-12th centuries. Skirmishes between Christians and Muslims in Africa and Bosnia and Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland (although a deeper look would reveal that those conflicts are only tangentially related to religious differences...more about political differences). There are others.

What about other headaches that weren't truly wars?

Sure, there were the Salem witch trials, the persecution of Protestants, the persecution of heretics in Calvin's Geneva, and the Inquisition. But dwarfing all of those we have:

Stalin's murder of millions of people coming from a completely godless philosophy.

Pol Pot's slaughter of millions of people opposing communism in Cambodia...again from an atheist dictator.

Mao's slaughter of millions of Chinese for the same reasons as above...again from an atheist dictator.

Hitler's slaughter of Jews, the disabled, retarded, and homosexuals...not for any religious reasons whatsoever, but rather his maniacal pursuit of a spotless, "master race".

My point is, I see this tired old line trotted out whenever a religious person dares to insert their moral views into political debate (as if no one else is appealing to their own personal morality in their argument), but it's time it's laid to rest for good. It's a strawman at best and a complete fabrication at worst.

Religious issues are at or near the roots of almost every war you listed. Not to mention the wars where the religious cause is right there in your face which you didn't list. I'm not saying every country went in saying that religion was the reason for the war, but it played a big factor.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

You have got to be kidding me.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Because, tiger88, as Christians we aren't called to just "live and let live" on each and every issue. We're called to be influencial in the world. We're called to be a preserving and enlightening influence on society in whatever sphere we find ourselves...family, community, school, business, government, etc. This is one of the aspects of the "salt and light" analogy that Christ used. This stuff matters to God, therefore it matters to me. I can't sit by, in a participatory, representative democracy and not voice support for measures that align with God's principles and opposition to those that do not.

Have Christians done a good job of this at all times? Hardly. Do they sometimes have the right view on something but a terrible way of communicating it? Absolutely. But we do the best we can and should not shrink from our calling because of past failings or a societal slide toward "virtually anything goes" morality.

What are you asserting are Christ's teachings/positions regarding homosexuality?

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Christ reaffirmed the Old Testament moral laws, of which sexual conduct was a component. His life, death and resurrection fulfilled in an ultimate sense the ceremonial laws regarding "ceremonial cleanliness", sacrifices, and the like, which is why keeping that aspect in the manner prescribed in the OT is no longer necessary.

If it is your contention that because He did not mention the specific sin of homosexuality that He had no opinion on the matter, I would also contend that He made no specific mention of beastiality or having sex with a 5 year old...but I doubt you'd be arguing He was in favor of or neutral on those issues.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It is however very disturbing to me to see that a supreme court justice is of this opinion. I think the age of legal consent is fine where it is at and you already have enough pedophiles going after underage kids as it is. Lower the age to twelve and imo it would only encourage them more (for kids under twelve as well). If there was ever a serious movement to change the age to 12 if there was anyway possible, I would participate in protests against it either in person or however.

why worry about it so much? For the most part what is going to happen is gonna happen is gonna happen

It was very disturbing, I left most of that emotion behind shortly thereafter and haven't lost a wink of sleep over it. Is that hard for you to understand?

Would you like some help removing that chip off your shoulder?

I understand OK. What chip do you refer to? I just used your answer in your last post before this one. Don't like you own answers?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Christ reaffirmed the Old Testament moral laws, of which sexual conduct was a component.  His life, death and resurrection fulfilled in an ultimate sense the ceremonial laws regarding "ceremonial cleanliness", sacrifices, and the like, which is why keeping that aspect in the manner prescribed in the OT is no longer necessary.

If it is your contention that because He did not mention the specific sin of homosexuality that He had no opinion on the matter, I would also contend that He made no specific mention of beastiality or having sex with a 5 year old...but I doubt you'd be arguing He was in favor of or neutral on those issues.

Wenke supports gay unions

Monday, 1, 2004

jmack@kalamazoogazette.com 388-8578

On most matters, Lorence Wenke is a staunch conservative.

The 58-year-old state representative from Richland Township opposes abortion and gun control. He backs small government and tax cuts.

A member of a fundamentalist church, he includes a verse of Scripture on his business card and participates in a Bible-study group for state legislators.

One would be hard-pressed to find a more unlikely advocate for gay rights.

Yet Wenke plans to be one of perhaps only two House Republicans voting against putting on the November ballot a Marriage Protection Amendment, which would change Michigan's constitution to ban gay marriage.

And he is opposing the bill, he said, out of a long-held and deeply felt belief that discrimination against homosexuals violates democratic principles and his Christian values.

"I kept quiet when African-Americans were facing discrimination," he said. "There have been too many people who have been discriminated against in my lifetime, and this time I'm not going to sit quietly while somebody is being mistreated.

"This is a matter of conscience. There's nothing in it for me."

He said his vote "will hurt me personally," and it already has.

Two Sundays ago, while Wenke and his wife were attending services at Richland Bible Church, the parking lot was blanketed with leaflets informing church members of Wenke's opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment and urging them to take Wenke to task.

Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, which distributed the fliers, said, "We thought it was an effective way to communicate with a constituency who we thought would be most likely to persuade Rep. Wenke to change his mind."

Glenn also said that, by opposing the proposed amendment, Wenke would be denying his constituents an opportunity to vote on an issue of vital concern, and there is little doubt it would hurt Wenke politically.

"He's taking a standing contrary to President George W. Bush, against the Republican Party and against almost every Republican in the Legislature," Glenn said. "It will hurt him and it should. ... I'm sure the people of his legislative district would prefer to have someone who will represent their views on something so fundamental."

Wenke knows it's likely that colleagues, friends and constituents in his heavily Republican district will be perplexed and even upset that he is voicing support for gay rights in terms even some Democrats are hesitant to use.

"It's certainly going to make re-election more difficult," said Wenke, whose term expires this year.

Still, he said, it's a matter of principle.

"It's all about this double standard and unequal treatment," he said. "It's just not fair."

A spiritual context

Wenke has pondered the gay-rights issue for years, but as an intellectual exercise rather than a personal issue.

"I'm not gay. Nobody in my family is gay," said Wenke, who has been married for 37 years and has two grown children, including a son who is a minister. "I've never had a homosexual experience in my life."

His one personal connection is a childhood friend, Doug Sipsma. On the wall of his Lansing office there is a framed newspaper article about Sipsma and his male partner, who were recently married in Ottawa, Ontario.

"Doug and I grew up together," Wenke said. "We were the only two boys in our class of seven at Comstock Christian School, first through sixth grade."

He and Sipsma later graduated together from Kalamazoo Christian High School in the early 1960s, Wenke said. Theirs was a childhood steeped in religion, with church services twice on Sundays, catechism class one night a week and school classrooms where the Bible was the most important textbook.

Wenke went on to Calvin College before he took over the family bedding-plant business and turned it into a multimillion-dollar operation. In 1994, Wenke moved to the political arena, getting elected to the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners, eventually serving as chairman. He won his state House seat in 2002, campaigning on a platform of tax cuts and economic growth.

Wenke didn't stay in touch with Sipsma after high school. But over the years, he heard from mutual acquaintances how Sipsma had divorced his wife and come out of the closet as a gay man.

Sipsma's story got Wenke thinking about the causes of homosexuality and whether it was a sin. He researched the topic, delving into scientific studies and the teachings of the Christian Reformed Church.

By the late 1980s, Wenke had decided "that popular opinion on this subject was wrong," that the so-called homosexual lifestyle was not a choice, but a biological destiny.

And if sexual orientation is not a choice, he decided, then discriminating against gays made no more sense than discrimination based on race. He said he strongly believes that if more people understood that homosexuality is biological, much of the opposition to gays would ebb.

When a Christian Reformed minister started an organization 15 years ago to gain greater acceptance of gays within the church, Wenke said he contributed money to support his efforts and brought him to Kalamazoo for a series of conversations.

It was no coincidence that Wenke's first support of gay rights came in a religious context.

"Certainly my No. 1 priority in life is my relationship with God," Wenke said.

At the last State of the State address, his guest of honor was his pastor. And he keeps his business closed on Sunday, pointing to the Bible's Fifth Commandment.

"I'm one of the few dinosaurs that says this should be a day of worship and rest," he said. "Most of my competitors are open on Sunday. Sunday is the second-best shopping day of the week. But I still think this is a commandment that should be kept."

Modern society's blithe acceptance of Sunday as a good day to visit the mall leads him to a larger point -- that devout Christians already have adjusted Biblical teachings to fit their needs, which should allow some slack on the issue of homosexuality.

He offers quotes from the Bible to support his point that the Scripture is even more condemning of divorce than homosexuality. Yet divorced and remarried couples are now welcomed at even fundamentalist churches, he said. Likewise, he said, many denominations, including Christian Reformed, have moved beyond the Biblical teaching against women speaking in church.

While he supports the new role of women in the church and greater acceptance of divorce, he said, it shows how "we Christians have decided that parts of the Bible don't apply to us anymore."

"So if we can put aside the teachings on women, on divorce, on the Sabbath -- and those are all things that we choose -- then why not on homosexuality, when we don't choose our sexual orientation?" Wenke said.

"Why can't we be as kind and generous in interpreting the Bible for homosexuals as we are for ourselves?"

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1078163468305920.xml

The Bible says alot of things. For example, you can find more support for polygamy than you can find against it. You can find support for a man taking his brother's widow as his wife even if he is already married. I don't see many folks saying it is the duty of Christians to legalize such marriages. You can also find support for stoning adulterers, but Christ disputed that "law" specifically.

He also said this:

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

—Matthew 5:31-32, NIV

Should that be the law of the land?

Moreover, I don't believe Christ ever said to go forth and legislate. Christ wanted people to choose the right thing, not be mandated by man's law to do it. Personally, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, but even if you do, I've never seen any biblical support that the Christian duty is to legislate against it. To the contrary, Christ showed little interest in promoting governmental law or sanctions. If someone believes that their faith requires them to engage in moral suasion with someone they see as sinning, that is one thing. Even then, though, I think the teachings of Christ would require that they do it in a loving, caring way, instead of having signs that I have seen at protests, such as, "God hates gays"

http://dannyman.toldme.com/journal/1998/07/sisters.jpg

[MDM4AU 337]

Those who advocate homosexuality use passages such as 2 Samuel 1:26 to support their position. It states that David and Jonathan had a relationship that surpassed the love of women. This is not referring to sexual love, however, but to a special friendship they had which exceeded or was different from any kind of sexual relationship. David and Jonathan would have been stoned under Levitical law had they been homosexuals (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).

God also condemns homosexuality in Genesis 19. Pro-homosexuals respond that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rape. However, the Sodomites did not initially force Lot’s male guests to have sex with them, but just by them mentioning it, Lot urged them not to do such a “wicked” thing (19:4-8). Other ancient sources such as Josephus and the New Testament (Jude 7) confirm that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.

Additionally, Romans 1:21-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly condemn lesbianism and homosexuality (cf., 1 Tim. 1:9, 10). Homosexual advocates reply that Romans 1 refers only to phallic cults who committed idolatry. Along with 1 Corinthians 6, they claim that God is simply condemning excessive and promiscuous sex, not a dedicated relationship between two homosexuals.

First, let me say that if it were true that God is only condemning promiscuity, 90 to 99 percent of all homosexuals would fall into this category! According to recent studies, only about 1 out of 7 homosexuals have had fewer than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 99 percent of the male homosexuals interviewed have had sex with complete strangers! Nevertheless, the context of Romans and Corinthians affirm that homosexuality is completely unnatural (Rom. 1:26, 27). When categorized with the other sins mentioned in these passages, there is no such thing as a moderate form of homosexuality any more than there could be moderate form of murder or adultery. Finally, the Bible condemns all types of fornication which would therefore include homosexuality (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Thes. 4:3; Heb. 13:4).

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Interesting article on the heels of all we've been discussing:

'Legalize Incest' Suggestion Shocks Lawmakers

By Patrick Goodenough

CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief

May 21, 2004

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - A respected academic in New Zealand has recommended that incest between consenting adults be legalized, playing down any concerns about the genetic abnormalities resulting from inbreeding.

Professor Peter Munz, professor emeritus of history at Wellington's Victoria University, stunned lawmakers who are considering amendments to criminal law by proposing that it was no longer necessary to outlaw sex between close relations...

..."Today, if siblings - against all odds - should fall in love with each other, they should be welcome to it."...

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Pa...L20040521a.html