What might be said of Bush's spirituality

Originally posted by bbarr
You were talking about ideas, not institutions. So, your claim was trivial. Now you are talking about something different: the effects on the institution of marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. While I'm not quite clear on just what an institution is (e.g., a set of practices, a set of norms, a set of attitudes, some combination), the only way your ...[text shortened]... ion of the nature and power of the bond that homosexual couples can form with each other.

One doesn't need a precise dictionary definition of 'institution' to recognise one. In any case, this is the relevant dictionary defintion:

"in·sti·tu·tion - A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=institution

Now, regarding your summary of my argument (a reasonably good summary, btw), (4) isn't really relevant to kirksey's question (does permitting "gay marriage" threaten "traditional" marriage?). So I'll set that aside for the moment.

Premise (1) doesn't need a divine telos (and where did I speak of any divine purposes in this thread?) to justify it - a cursory examination of the institution marriage across cultures and history (barring mid-late 20th and early 21st century Western civilisation) is sufficient to see that the double purpose of marriage has a near-universal (if not universal) attestation. Even a secular natural law theorist can see that - you don't need a Secret Decoder Ring. Further, marriage (as an institution) pre-dates and survives formal governments - so I'm certainly not arguing that governments define its purposes arbitarily. However, since governments (especially in the modern world) do play an important role in endorsing/recognising marriages, the view on the purposes of marriage a government adopts can and will affect the state of marriages in its domain. So, while your marriage might have a different purpose than mine, the way the government views the purpose(s) of marriage impacts both our marriages.

Note: If the lobby behind same-sex "marriage" weren't interested in re-defining marriage for everybody, they wouldn't be campaigning for same-sex unions to be called "marriage" in the first place. Why is it not enough that civil unions have the same privileges as marriage without being termed 'marriage' (as Pal asks)?

(As an aside, it might be an interesting exercise for you to study marriage in matrilineal societies (like the Nairs of Kerala in south India) - where the purpose of marriage is almost entirely procreative; the unitive aspect is virtually non-existent.)

Same-sex "marriage" (and, as I've said repeatedly, this is not about sexuality), by its very nature, is not ordered to procreation. A particular traditional marriage may be incapable of procreation; no same-sex "marriage" is capable of it. Sure, technology can help one of the partners in the relationship conceive - but the relationship itself simply cannot create new life. Therefore, a government that endorses same-sex "marriage" as being no different from traditional marriage, i.e. a government that sees marriage as simply the union of two adults (see how just the unitive aspect comes in?), cannot simultaneously endorse procreation as a purpose of marriage. That's premise (2).

On the question of adoption, I find the whole idea of adoption being treated as a "civil right" revolting - as though children are just some kind of commodity that allows us adults to express our fundamental rights.

Premise (3) probably doesn't hold too much in a system that already allows for no-fault divorce but, given premise (2), a government cannot allow the procreative and child-rearing purpose of marriage to over-ride the unitive purpose. So, for instance, a government cannot make it harder for couples who have children to divorce than couples that don't.

Your "refutation" of my devaluing claim, in fact, proves my point. Part of the reason you don't marry your former roommate is because you don't treat marriage as simply a bundle of visitation and property rights - which is, it seems, how some of the same-sex marriage lobbyists treat it.

And, quite frankly, your charges of homophobia are tiresome. Those of us who defend traditional marriage have no "inadequate appreciation" of homosexual relationships - it is precisely because we appreciate the very nature of such relationships that we feel the term 'marriage' cannot be re-defined arbitrarily to include them.

Originally posted by howardgee
Hurry up and starve yourself to death, you bigotted moron.

Forgotten your pills again?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
One doesn't need a precise dictionary definition of 'institution' to recognise one. In any case, this is the relevant dictionary defintion:

"[b]in·sti·tu·tion - A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family."
http://dictionary.ref ...[text shortened]... ge' cannot be re-defined arbitrarily to include them.[/b]

One of the great challenges of the church today is how to be relevant. We live in a time when we see things all around us that were never conceived of even 30 years ago much less 500 years ago. I want to take a word that you used "procreation" and reframe it in such a way as to validate and affirm nontraditional of "creating."

A single man who has no children and has devoted countless hours helping young boys who do not have positive male role models is "procreating." A lesbian couple that has adopted a "special needs" child who has been shuttled from foster home to foster home is procreating. Both of these examples are "procreating" in the sense that they are instilling potential and hope in someone that had a fatalistic identity.

I'm confused by your stance on adoption in which you find the idea of it being treated as a "civil right" revolting. My thinking is that I really don't care whether it is a civil right or not, but rather a cause for great celebration when someone, whatever their orientation, is willing to make tremendous sacrifices to raise a disadvantaged kid. This is what I mean when I say the great challenge of the church is to be relevant. Exactly what is the word from the Lord on this? Is it that homosexuals are unnatural people and therefore unfit to adopt children? Or is it that we all are limited in our humanity and the task of surpassing all our limitations to help the poor and the orphan is a God-given and God-blessed task?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Also, your last sentence doesn't make sense. Clearly if extra-marital sex has been responsible for millions of people being infected with HIV (IIRC, AIDS itself is preventable with modern, albeit expensive, medicine) - then surely those who oppose it are on the right track?

There is nothing wrong with oposing extramarital sex. However the general stance of many Christians is to oppose condoms because the implication is that they will be used in extramarital sex. This results in people engaging in extramarital sex anyway without a condom and getting AIDS as a result. This is undeniable fact. Opposition to condoms results in deaths.
Please give me some links to an effective AIDS prevention medication because none of the AIDS organisations that I know have heard of it and it would change the world if they could be informed.
My point was that as with the condom issue, most people opposed to gay marriage are actually anti-gay. However they dont see that stoping gay marriage does not stop people being gay and may actually encourage promiscuous behaviour amoungst gay people.
The question of adoption is a separate issue and should be handled similarly to questions of adoption by single parents, unfit parents etc.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On the question of adoption, I find the whole idea of adoption being treated as a "civil right" revolting - as though children are just some kind of commodity that allows us adults to express our fundamental rights.

How else should it be treated? One has the right to adopt, or one does not. Do you suggest a counter-balancing right not to be adopted?

Originally posted by kirksey957
One of the great challenges of the church today is how to be relevant. We live in a time when we see things all around us that were never conceived of even 30 years ago much less 500 years ago. I want to take a word that you used "procreation" and reframe it in such a way as to validate and affirm nontraditional of "creating."

A single man who has n ...[text shortened]... limitations to help the poor and the orphan is a God-given and God-blessed task?

There is nothing new about the "expansion" of 'procreate' you're proposing - people have been adopting and taking wards and apprentices under their wing since the beginning of human civilisation. There was no need to equate such acts of charity with 'procreate' then, and there isn't now.

What I find revolting about the "right to adoption" is that children are being used as pawns in a culture war, as guinea pigs in social experimentation. Adoption isn't a right - it's a privilege and a grave responsibility. Like you, I too find it a cause for celebration when someone is willing to raise an orphaned child - but that doesn't give them an automatic right to actually raise an orphaned child. The child is a human person too - and the child's dignity shouldn't be violated just so an adult can feel good about how charitable he/she is being.

If becoming "relevant" means the Church should be an accomplice to a culture that commoditizes the human being then, no thanks - I'm quite happy for the Church to remain in the Dark Ages.

What does God think about all this? I believe that God rejoices in the willingness of human beings to show charity towards fellow human beings; that the source of that charity is ultimately His grace and the movement of His Spirit within people. However, good intentions aren't enough; the end does not justify the means. In a world distorted by sin, even well-intentioned charity can lead to acts that are against God's will.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How else should it be treated?

As a privilege and a grave responsibility.

Not some "right" we are entitled to.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As a privilege and a grave responsibility.

Not some "right" we are entitled to.

Yes, but in terms of the law which governs society the ability to do something or not is a right, like it or not. One cannot adopt without the right to adopt.

Originally posted by howardgee
correct....votes from the religious zealots in Southern North America.

Mexico?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, but in terms of the law which governs society the ability to do something or not is a right, like it or not. One cannot adopt without the right to adopt.

One cannot adopt without permission to adopt. It's not the same thing as a right - where no permission is usually necessary.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
One cannot adopt without permission to adopt. It's not the same thing as a right - where no permission is usually necessary.

You're right. And the permission is granted or not by a judge, who determines whether any given adoption is in the child's best interests. In the USA it seems adoption law regarding single parents, gay parents etc varies from state to state. Further reading here:
http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/gay-lesbian-bisexual-and-transgender-adoption/149/1.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
One cannot adopt without permission to adopt. It's not the same thing as a right - where no permission is usually necessary.

Nevertheless it is and should be a seperate issue from gay marriage. I am sure that gay couples can adopt in some places, without getting married.
However if you feel that gay couple should not be allowed to adopt you should give good reasons other than religious ones. Otherwise your next statement will be 'muslims should not be allowed to adopt' as they will bring up thier children with anti-Christian sentiment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless it is and should be a seperate issue from gay marriage. I am sure that gay couples can adopt in some places, without getting married.
However if you feel that gay couple should not be allowed to adopt you should give good reasons other than religious ones. Otherwise your next statement will be 'muslims should not be allowed to adopt' as they will bring up thier children with anti-Christian sentiment.

twitehead, do me a favour - please point out a SINGLE instance of my arguing against same-sex adoption on religious grounds in this thread.

EDIT: I find it highly irritating when people simply assume that, because I'm religious, the only arguments I make are religious ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless it is and should be a seperate issue from gay marriage. I am sure that gay couples can adopt in some places, without getting married.

If anything, it is the same-sex "marriage" lobby that is pushing adoption by same-sex couples as a back-door means of establishing same-sex "marriage".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
twitehead, do me a favour - please point out a SINGLE instance of my arguing against same-sex adoption on religious grounds in this thread.

You may not have argued the point on religious grounds but you also have not provided any, even anecdotal, evidence that the average homosexual couple is not as capable as the average heterosexual couple at raising a child.

I'm not even asking you to provide a link to a study or anything...what i would like to know is have you ever read or seen anything to back up your idea or is it just an assumption on your part?

TheSkipper