" I refuse to believe that acknowledging, accepting and welcoming these people would amount to spitting in the face of God. I believe that rejecting them in God's name is closer to spitting in God's face"
Excellent point, Jim.
I've been keeping up with this thread all along, and as far as the death penalty debate, all this discourse has caused me to start re-examining my own beliefs about the dp. For as long as I can remember I've been a staunch supporter of the dp, without ever thinking through my reasons for that support. Now, after this thread, I think it may be time for me to change, or at least consider changeing, my views.
As far as homosexuality goes, I was a homophobic for years untill I had a co-worker who was homosexual, with whom I became good friends.
The religion I grew up in, and with which I still identify the most, Episcopalian, recognizes and accepts homosexuality. Perhaps it's an over-simplification, but perhaps one reason they have done so is that they remember something Christ said - that He had come to make the old new. To me, that means re-thinking and overturning many of the beliefs and teachings of the Old Testament. And, thinking about it, that could also serve as justification for me to consider changing my views of the dp.
Thanks to all participants in this thread for some outstanding reading, and some thought-provoking and well-supported points of view.
~Larry
Is it just me?
Many of those deaths could have been prevented by avoiding the behaviors that caused them, too. I have seen people die from AIDS and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, it's terrible. But deflecting responsibility for one's health from the individual to a faceless "society" isn't likely to solve the problem. People with gonorrhea, chlamydia or veneral warts are counseled on minimizing their risks by modifying their actions, HIV should not be excluded.jim_mc wrote:
I get pretty emotional about this because I've lost a good number of gay friends to AIDS, alcohol and drug addiction and suicide, and I think that many of these deaths could have been prevented if society didn't condone making life miserable for homosexuals.
Jim
As far as alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide, those are endemic in the heterosexual population as well. Society and relationships put stresses on everyone, ultimately the individual can only control his reactions to them.
-
susnfx
- Posts: 4245
- Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Salt Lake City
To believe that homosexuality is morally wrong does not necessarily equate with homophobia (a fear of homosexuals). It has become politically incorrect to oppose homosexual marriage (or other benefits), with those opposed being accused of homophobia. There is a difference between those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong (and thus that they should not be forced to accept it by legislation) and those who are truly homophobic.
Susan
Susan
The term homophobia has evolved for many people to describe a hatred or dislike of homosexuals rather than a true phobia. It's not very accurate but that's the way language is sometimes. I agree that people who have honest moral questions with homosexuality are often painted as quasi-racists, implying they are such vile people that their opinions don't matter. This only polarizes things further instead of opening an honest discussion.susnfx wrote:To believe that homosexuality is morally wrong does not necessarily equate with homophobia (a fear of homosexuals). It has become politically incorrect to oppose homosexual marriage (or other benefits), with those opposed being accused of homophobia. There is a difference between those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong (and thus that they should not be forced to accept it by legislation) and those who are truly homophobic.
Susan
So is there a gay agenda? I would say yes, since most homosexual activist groups share common coals, usually including recognition of gay couples as legally married, adoption rights, equal opportunity to employment, and establishment of "hate crime" laws. As a group I believe they consider themselves as possessing political power, in the same sense that the religious right does.
One problem I see is that the public persona of gays does not seem to match the majority of gay individuals. Most gays I know are pretty much like everybody else except for sexual preference, they just want to live their lives, get up, go to work, play the whistle, whatever. When many people think of the gay public persona, though, it's usually two leather-clad guys doing the boo foo in a parade or some guy dressed like Carmen Miranda. I saw an article last week about a recent gay pride parade in Toronto where a bunch of guys were walking around with their yarbles hanging out (the lesbians were more demure, being only topless). When these sorts of groups then desire to work politically it's akin to wearing a Bozo costume and complaining no one will take you seriously. I think the gay groups should get some new PR guys, can the public celebrations and parades and work politically with the same intelligence they possess personally.
Right--'homophobia' is question begging.
Also many homosexuals bear responsibility
for the AIDS epidemic among gays. When the health department
of SF appealed to gay bath houses to close
so as to prevent infection, it was
was denounced as homophobic discrimination.
Yes there is a homosexual agenda, one which I largely
support. I really don't understand homosexuality
very well, but the bottom line is to respond with
compassion. It's plain there have always been
homosexuals (I don't mean just bisexuals),
and I see, no reason why such people
shouldn't have a right to dignity.
On the face of things there is nothing
inherently destructive in homosexual
acts--so one errs on the side of inclusion.
I've had many gay friends--plenty of good
people. Let them marry, I say.
I think there is a real problem for
Christians who take scripture seriously,
because there is no question that homosexual
acts are blasted. If you take scripture as
the word of God, it's plain that God forbids
this behaviour. Efforts to say that the
passages don't really mean this, etc.
don't really add up. Surely they do.
But I do think the attitude of conservative Christianity
is often misrepresented somewhat.
For Christianity is emphatic that homosexuals
are loved by God. At Notre Dame there
were signs and statements reaching out
to homosexuals--'There is a place for you at
God's table.' In all fairness these aren't people
who hate homosexuals, not even practicing
homosexuals--though they certainly
beleive that homosexual acts are sinful
and they disagree sharply with the
homosexual agenda..
Jeusus didn't die out of love for the sinless.
Religious homosexuals respond understandably that
a relgion that maintains that the expression
of who they are and how they feel is sinful,
and that finally counsels a life without homosexual
acts is little better than hatred.
Conservative Christianity is caught
between scripture and Jesus's message
of radical love--an unstable situation, I think.
I do think it will change one day,
and I believe I know which side of
the conflict will prevail. Best
Also many homosexuals bear responsibility
for the AIDS epidemic among gays. When the health department
of SF appealed to gay bath houses to close
so as to prevent infection, it was
was denounced as homophobic discrimination.
Yes there is a homosexual agenda, one which I largely
support. I really don't understand homosexuality
very well, but the bottom line is to respond with
compassion. It's plain there have always been
homosexuals (I don't mean just bisexuals),
and I see, no reason why such people
shouldn't have a right to dignity.
On the face of things there is nothing
inherently destructive in homosexual
acts--so one errs on the side of inclusion.
I've had many gay friends--plenty of good
people. Let them marry, I say.
I think there is a real problem for
Christians who take scripture seriously,
because there is no question that homosexual
acts are blasted. If you take scripture as
the word of God, it's plain that God forbids
this behaviour. Efforts to say that the
passages don't really mean this, etc.
don't really add up. Surely they do.
But I do think the attitude of conservative Christianity
is often misrepresented somewhat.
For Christianity is emphatic that homosexuals
are loved by God. At Notre Dame there
were signs and statements reaching out
to homosexuals--'There is a place for you at
God's table.' In all fairness these aren't people
who hate homosexuals, not even practicing
homosexuals--though they certainly
beleive that homosexual acts are sinful
and they disagree sharply with the
homosexual agenda..
Jeusus didn't die out of love for the sinless.
Religious homosexuals respond understandably that
a relgion that maintains that the expression
of who they are and how they feel is sinful,
and that finally counsels a life without homosexual
acts is little better than hatred.
Conservative Christianity is caught
between scripture and Jesus's message
of radical love--an unstable situation, I think.
I do think it will change one day,
and I believe I know which side of
the conflict will prevail. Best
To Jim Mc:
Just about the gay marriage argument, it isn't that
gay marriage will demean marriage, but that
it will be destructive to the institution.
Here's why. A high divorce rate is destructive
to the institution of marriage; so would
be a higher divorce rate. Married people
who work to change the model of marriage so that it becomes
accepted that marriage is no bar to promiscuity
are destructive to the institutuion of marriage.
People who get married 30 or 40 times
are also destructive to the the insittuion.
The concern is that if/when gays marry
we will get all three. Gay activists
say their intention is to change the
model of marriage so that it is no
bar to promiscuity. Probably they
will act accordingly after they marry.
I've known a fair number of gays
very well who would have been married
and divorced umpteen times in their
twenties. Of course this means a
significantly higher divorce rate.
Therefore gay marriage,, whether or not
it demeans marriage, is likely to
be destructive to the institution of marriage.
The argument is practical, not moralistic, Best, Jim
Just about the gay marriage argument, it isn't that
gay marriage will demean marriage, but that
it will be destructive to the institution.
Here's why. A high divorce rate is destructive
to the institution of marriage; so would
be a higher divorce rate. Married people
who work to change the model of marriage so that it becomes
accepted that marriage is no bar to promiscuity
are destructive to the institutuion of marriage.
People who get married 30 or 40 times
are also destructive to the the insittuion.
The concern is that if/when gays marry
we will get all three. Gay activists
say their intention is to change the
model of marriage so that it is no
bar to promiscuity. Probably they
will act accordingly after they marry.
I've known a fair number of gays
very well who would have been married
and divorced umpteen times in their
twenties. Of course this means a
significantly higher divorce rate.
Therefore gay marriage,, whether or not
it demeans marriage, is likely to
be destructive to the institution of marriage.
The argument is practical, not moralistic, Best, Jim
-
NicoMoreno
- Posts: 2100
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I just wanted to update my location... 100 characters is a lot and I don't really want to type so much just to edit my profile...
- Location: St. Louis, MO
Hmmm.... I do not think that what you say is true really is...
How to put this:
Basically, it is quite true that Homosexuality is NOT ok according to the Bible, which is (supposed to be) the basis for all Christianity (Catholic Protestant whatever). Anyone who calls themselves a christian but does not act in accordance with that is a liar. Now, I am not saying anything about right or wrong. I have my beliefs. That is what they are. MY beliefs. But when someone says that what I believe is wrong (or that I believe in a wrong way) I get upset. People that do that are people who say that Jesus, or the Bible, have said it is ok to be gay.
Hmm... I hope that is coherent, logical and not overly emotional. Because I HAVE thought about it. I do not hold beliefs without thought.
Ok, next section --> Loving gays. This is why I try not to act hateful towards gays. I am not, I just believe what they are doing is wrong. They are allowed to make a choice, do what they want, but I will not accept that it is ok. (NOTE: I said "that it" not "that they", in other words I will accept them, but I will not change my beliefs to suit them)
This IS hard. How do you love someone while believing that what they are doing is wrong? I admit I find it hard. BUT, ways of "accepting" them do NOT include changing the basics of my beliefs to suit them, or allowing them to practise certain things in my place of worship. (ie getting married in my church)
You are right that rejecting them is wrong. I try not to reject people at all, but I certainly will reject certain "lifestyle choices".
This is pretty rambling, so I am sorry for that, but please realize that I do NOT think anyone is inherently evil. I believe that certain actions/choices are evil or wrong.
Whoever said it is right. Jesus DIDN'T come for the sinless. But he certainly didn't come to say "Hey, you're sinning, but what the heck, that's ok!"
Sorry, if anyone is offended or upset by this, I am not trying to do that. I am trying to say what I believe and why.
Nico " down off the soapbox " Moreno[/quote]
How to put this:
Basically, it is quite true that Homosexuality is NOT ok according to the Bible, which is (supposed to be) the basis for all Christianity (Catholic Protestant whatever). Anyone who calls themselves a christian but does not act in accordance with that is a liar. Now, I am not saying anything about right or wrong. I have my beliefs. That is what they are. MY beliefs. But when someone says that what I believe is wrong (or that I believe in a wrong way) I get upset. People that do that are people who say that Jesus, or the Bible, have said it is ok to be gay.
Hmm... I hope that is coherent, logical and not overly emotional. Because I HAVE thought about it. I do not hold beliefs without thought.
Ok, next section --> Loving gays. This is why I try not to act hateful towards gays. I am not, I just believe what they are doing is wrong. They are allowed to make a choice, do what they want, but I will not accept that it is ok. (NOTE: I said "that it" not "that they", in other words I will accept them, but I will not change my beliefs to suit them)
This IS hard. How do you love someone while believing that what they are doing is wrong? I admit I find it hard. BUT, ways of "accepting" them do NOT include changing the basics of my beliefs to suit them, or allowing them to practise certain things in my place of worship. (ie getting married in my church)
If you call someone a liar, it is akin to "spitting in his/her face" By saying that certain things we are told are wrong by God, we are calling him a liar... Well, I don't know if that is what you meant, but I think that allowing homosexuality in a church (marriages, etc) is saying God was wrong, or lying.I refuse to believe that acknowledging, accepting and welcoming these people would amount to spitting in the face of God. I believe that rejecting them in God's name is closer to spitting in God's face
You are right that rejecting them is wrong. I try not to reject people at all, but I certainly will reject certain "lifestyle choices".
This is pretty rambling, so I am sorry for that, but please realize that I do NOT think anyone is inherently evil. I believe that certain actions/choices are evil or wrong.
Whoever said it is right. Jesus DIDN'T come for the sinless. But he certainly didn't come to say "Hey, you're sinning, but what the heck, that's ok!"
Sorry, if anyone is offended or upset by this, I am not trying to do that. I am trying to say what I believe and why.
Nico " down off the soapbox " Moreno[/quote]
-
tinlaw
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Cadiz, KY
With all due respect to those who disagree,
Jim[/quote]
Thanks for respecting those of us who disagree. The passage of 20 or 30 years will not change my opinion on this. Please don't equate thinking homosexual behavior is perverted with hating homosexuals.
I won't argue with whether gays choose whom they are sexually attracted to, I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is moral to have sex with any one that one is sexually attracted to.
I doubt if pedophiles have any more control over their sexual attractions than gays, but we are still allowed to have the opinion that to act on that attraction is morally wrong.
Likewise, a heterosexual may not be able to choose not to be attracted to his next door neighbor wife, but that doesn't make is morally right for him to have sex with her.
Thoughts and behavior are two different things.
Anyone who broadcasts his/her private behavior risks me making a judgment on said behavior. I don't have to apologize for my beliefs, and no one else has to accept them. But if I choose to worship with people who hold the traditional, biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin, along with fornication and adultery, our church should never be forced by the government to hire people who engage in those behaviors. We shouldn't be forced to "accept" someone else's belief about homosexuality.
Can I air my opinion without being a homophobe, bigot, and hate monger? I'm no more afraid of homosexuals than the boogie man, and I don't hate them either.
Also, married people pay higher taxes than two cohabiting people, it's called the "marriage penalty" in the popular venacular. Who's discriminating against whom?
By the way, I'm neither married nor a lesbian.
Jim[/quote]
Thanks for respecting those of us who disagree. The passage of 20 or 30 years will not change my opinion on this. Please don't equate thinking homosexual behavior is perverted with hating homosexuals.
I won't argue with whether gays choose whom they are sexually attracted to, I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is moral to have sex with any one that one is sexually attracted to.
I doubt if pedophiles have any more control over their sexual attractions than gays, but we are still allowed to have the opinion that to act on that attraction is morally wrong.
Likewise, a heterosexual may not be able to choose not to be attracted to his next door neighbor wife, but that doesn't make is morally right for him to have sex with her.
Thoughts and behavior are two different things.
Anyone who broadcasts his/her private behavior risks me making a judgment on said behavior. I don't have to apologize for my beliefs, and no one else has to accept them. But if I choose to worship with people who hold the traditional, biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin, along with fornication and adultery, our church should never be forced by the government to hire people who engage in those behaviors. We shouldn't be forced to "accept" someone else's belief about homosexuality.
Can I air my opinion without being a homophobe, bigot, and hate monger? I'm no more afraid of homosexuals than the boogie man, and I don't hate them either.
Also, married people pay higher taxes than two cohabiting people, it's called the "marriage penalty" in the popular venacular. Who's discriminating against whom?
By the way, I'm neither married nor a lesbian.
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
I hold to traditional Christian beliefs. First off, that means that I believe that due to the fall of man, we are all born with the stain of original sin, and are not inherently righteous, and that our nature, being fallen, is to commit those acts which are contrary to the will of God. Apart from Jesus Christ (who is fully God and fully man, yet without stain of original sin) we have all strayed and done things which we ought not. In traditional Christian belief, God ordained that one man may marry one woman, and that all conjugal activities must be confined to that relationship. The marriage exists until the death of one of the two.NicoMoreno wrote:Now, I am not saying anything about right or wrong. I have my beliefs. That is what they are. MY beliefs. But when someone says that what I believe is wrong (or that I believe in a wrong way) I get upset. People that do that are people who say that Jesus, or the Bible, have said it is ok to be gay.
Hmm... I hope that is coherent, logical and not overly emotional. Because I HAVE thought about it. I do not hold beliefs without thought.
Ok, next section --> Loving gays. This is why I try not to act hateful towards gays. I am not, I just believe what they are doing is wrong. They are allowed to make a choice, do what they want, but I will not accept that it is ok.
-
tinlaw
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Cadiz, KY
Walden, apparently we share a belief in congugal relationships. I am divorced and have been celebate (abstinant?) for 9 years. My former husband is still living, and I would believe it to be equally sinful for me to engage in "intimate" behavior with either a man or a woman.
I don't see homosexual behavior to be worse than other sexual sins.
I don't see homosexual behavior to be worse than other sexual sins.
The question I would ask is: 'What's wrong
about homosexual acts other than that
scripture says they are wrong?'
(Note by the way that you don't have to
be homosexual to perform homosexual acts.)
Adultery is wrong because it violates
the marriage vow and because it destroys
marriage. Incest is wrong because it destroys
children.
Generally when the Bible says something is
wrong (killing, lying, stealling, etc) it's
plainly destructive. Of course God, who
loves us, doesn't want us to do these things.
It's strange to find something wrong just because
scripture says so.
It's possible, isnt' it, that at some places
scripture will express a prevailing social view,
not God's wish? 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'
Mightn't this not be one of those places?
If God condemns homosexual acts,
why does he do it?
about homosexual acts other than that
scripture says they are wrong?'
(Note by the way that you don't have to
be homosexual to perform homosexual acts.)
Adultery is wrong because it violates
the marriage vow and because it destroys
marriage. Incest is wrong because it destroys
children.
Generally when the Bible says something is
wrong (killing, lying, stealling, etc) it's
plainly destructive. Of course God, who
loves us, doesn't want us to do these things.
It's strange to find something wrong just because
scripture says so.
It's possible, isnt' it, that at some places
scripture will express a prevailing social view,
not God's wish? 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'
Mightn't this not be one of those places?
If God condemns homosexual acts,
why does he do it?
-
tinlaw
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Cadiz, KY
It is difficult to answer the question "why does God say homosexual acts are wrong" without getting too graphic.
Let's assume that we all understand basic physiology.
Aside from the physical "wrongness", there are emotional and spiritual consequences as well, which perhaps God wishes us to avoid.
Earlier in this thread, suicide was mentioned, and the heartbreak of watching someone die from AIDS. Is it possible that the emotional damage is not caused by "society", but by the life style itself?
How can I lovingly support the decision of someone in joining this lifestyle?
I have worked as a volunteer counselor with teen age girls who are promiscuous. The greatest damage these girls have is not the STDs they acquire, but the emotional damage that comes from the life style.
I can't explain it, but there is something very special, holy even, about marital sex. The sex act outside of marriage is often accompanied by emotional upset. I guess God designed it that way.
Let's assume that we all understand basic physiology.
Aside from the physical "wrongness", there are emotional and spiritual consequences as well, which perhaps God wishes us to avoid.
Earlier in this thread, suicide was mentioned, and the heartbreak of watching someone die from AIDS. Is it possible that the emotional damage is not caused by "society", but by the life style itself?
How can I lovingly support the decision of someone in joining this lifestyle?
I have worked as a volunteer counselor with teen age girls who are promiscuous. The greatest damage these girls have is not the STDs they acquire, but the emotional damage that comes from the life style.
I can't explain it, but there is something very special, holy even, about marital sex. The sex act outside of marriage is often accompanied by emotional upset. I guess God designed it that way.
Then why wouldn't he want gays to marry?tinlaw wrote:It is difficult to answer the question "why does God say homosexual acts are wrong" without getting too graphic.
Let's assume that we all understand basic physiology.
Aside from the physical "wrongness",
I don't understand that.
there are emotional and spiritual consequences as well, which perhaps God wishes us to avoid.
Earlier in this thread, suicide was mentioned, and the heartbreak of watching someone die from AIDS.
Obviously promiscuous and irresponsible sex can
be a problem for anybody, including heterosexuals.
Most AIDS on this planet is suffered by heterosexuals.
But what's the problem with careful, monogamous,
and loving homosexual sex, of which there is plenty?
Is it possible that the emotional damage is not caused by "society", but by the life style itself?
I don't know what the 'life style' is supposed to amount to,
but I know plenty of emotionally healthy male and female
homosexuals. Lots of professors, surgeons, many with
long term homosexual partners. It's hard to see
a plausible connection between homosexuality and
emotional difficulties, though there will certainly be
one for irresponsible hetero or homosexual sex.
It's conceivable that homosexuality causes
emotional damage, but on the face of things
social condemnation and rejection are the more
likely culprits.
How can I lovingly support the decision of someone in joining this lifestyle?
I don't know what the 'life style' is.
I have worked as a volunteer counselor with teen age girls who are promiscuous. The greatest damage these girls have is not the STDs they acquire, but the emotional damage that comes from the life style.
We agree about promiscuity. But the question is about
homosexual sex.
I can't explain it, but there is something very special, holy even, about marital sex. The sex act outside of marriage is often accompanied by emotional upset. I guess God designed it that way.
Honestly, I do understand
why God would prohibit promiscuity, adultery,
and irresponsible sex. But why would he
condemn homosexual acts? Best
-
HDSarah
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: 64.9 deg N, 147.6 deg W
- Contact:
Marriage is both a legal and a personal relationship. Each married couple has their own private definition of the personal aspect of the relationship. Many people define marriage based on their religious beliefs, are married in a religious ceremony performed by clergy, and the religious aspect of their marriage is very important to them. That should be respected. It would be wrong for the government to intervene in a church's decision about who may participate in any of the sacred rites of that church, whether that is leading services, receiving communion, or being joined in marriage as that church defines it. Those who disagree with a particular church's practices may either stay away from that church, or (as with the gay Catholics) work for change from within the church. But it's that church's business, not the government's.
I do believe that the state has a legitimate interest in the economic and emotional partnership we call "marriage." Partners support each other financially, providing a private safety net that sometimes prevents one of them from falling into public (tax-funded) safety nets. The emotional support that partners give each other in a functional marriage (dysfunctional marriage is another can of worms, which I don't want to open now) is good for their mental health -- a public health concern. Promiscuity creates a physical as well as an emotional health risk, so there's a public health reason to discourage it and encourage monogamous partnerships. Someone who is involved in a stable, long-term, loving relationship is less likely to become a drain on society. I don't think the gender of the partners is important to this argument. The state has an interest in promoting stable, long-term, economically interdependent, emotionally satisfying, monogamous relationships.
I think that the legal and personal/religious aspects of marriage should be separated. The government would be responsible for licensing couples who wish to be legally joined, and those couples would be granted all the legal rights and responsibilities currently corresponding to legal marriage. I think it would be clearer and more politically palatable to call the legal union something other than "marriage." Churches would be free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to conduct those ceremonies for couples that do not satisfy that particular church's criteria (e.g., one or both parties are not a member of that church, the couple hasn't completed required premarital pastoral counseling, both parties are of the same sex, one party has been married previously, etc.).
And while I'm at it, I'll add my perspective on the death penality. I'm opposed to it on both moral and practical grounds. The practical grounds have been well stated previously: as it is currently applied, the death penalty is unjust. The moral grounds are that I believe that it is wrong for humans to kill other humans, and therefore killing should be avoided whenever possible. Putting someone in prison for life without parole is, to me, a good alternative to state-sponsored killing.
Sarah
I do believe that the state has a legitimate interest in the economic and emotional partnership we call "marriage." Partners support each other financially, providing a private safety net that sometimes prevents one of them from falling into public (tax-funded) safety nets. The emotional support that partners give each other in a functional marriage (dysfunctional marriage is another can of worms, which I don't want to open now) is good for their mental health -- a public health concern. Promiscuity creates a physical as well as an emotional health risk, so there's a public health reason to discourage it and encourage monogamous partnerships. Someone who is involved in a stable, long-term, loving relationship is less likely to become a drain on society. I don't think the gender of the partners is important to this argument. The state has an interest in promoting stable, long-term, economically interdependent, emotionally satisfying, monogamous relationships.
I think that the legal and personal/religious aspects of marriage should be separated. The government would be responsible for licensing couples who wish to be legally joined, and those couples would be granted all the legal rights and responsibilities currently corresponding to legal marriage. I think it would be clearer and more politically palatable to call the legal union something other than "marriage." Churches would be free to conduct religious marriage ceremonies, and free to refuse to conduct those ceremonies for couples that do not satisfy that particular church's criteria (e.g., one or both parties are not a member of that church, the couple hasn't completed required premarital pastoral counseling, both parties are of the same sex, one party has been married previously, etc.).
And while I'm at it, I'll add my perspective on the death penality. I'm opposed to it on both moral and practical grounds. The practical grounds have been well stated previously: as it is currently applied, the death penalty is unjust. The moral grounds are that I believe that it is wrong for humans to kill other humans, and therefore killing should be avoided whenever possible. Putting someone in prison for life without parole is, to me, a good alternative to state-sponsored killing.
Sarah
ICE JAM: "dam" good music that won't leave you cold. Check out our CD at http://cdbaby.com/cd/icejam