Is a sin a good reason to deny a person secular rights?

Question

Opponents of same-sex marriage say that it ishould be banned because homosexuality is a sin. However, marriage confers secular benefits:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/118/304/192/ART/

Why deny this to individuals because they are "commiting a sin?" We don't deny rights to adulterers or liars.

That word should be "should" not "ishould." My bad.

Schneb:

Okay. But the point is, it does confer secular rights and benefits in society. Would you be okay if "civil unions" conferred the same rights and benefits, and the word "marriage" only refer to church-sanctioned opposite-sex unions?

ac28:

We have AIDS in this world because the SIV virus jumped species from chimpanzees to humans. It just happened to hit the homosexual community first in the US. A different set of circumstances, and it could have easily hit the heterosexual community first.

Answer 1

Here's my take on that. Marriage was always a religious institution, and if the churches don't want to marry homosexuals, that's their right to refuse service to any soul. It seems to run counter to their mission, but if they're willing to answer to God for turning people away they can. Besides, there are plenty of Gay Churches they can go to. What I really see as a problem is the secular benefits for marriage. I'm not in favor of extending that to homosexuals, but I'm not in favor of extending that to heterosexuals either. Why is it the governments business? Why should married people be offered greater benefits than single or divorced people? Should they pay less taxes than me? They already have the opportunity to live on two incomes. Why should they pay a smaller percentage of that then I have to pay on my single source of income? What gives a governing body the right or necessity to license marriage? Shouldn't that fall under the Separation of Church and State? If a Gay couple wants to call themselves Mr. and Mr. Smith-Jones, I don't care. What I do care about is being taxed more because I haven't found a wife yet. Abolish Marriage as a Federal Institution, and leave it in the Churches where it belongs.

Answer 2

First, marriage is an institution of God created in Genesis. Society has adopted it and our system as made it part of the governing laws. So your question is based on a false premise.
_____________________________

"Would you be okay if "civil unions" conferred the same rights and benefits, and the word "marriage" only refer to church-sanctioned opposite-sex unions?"

Personally, I do not agree with the idea that marriage provides priviledges at ALL. Example: I don't think a married couple should get tax breaks over a single person (I'm a flat-tax advocate).

The main and utmost purpose of marriage is to be a type or model of Christ and the church. When we dilute what marriage is, we break the type and the model is lost. At this point in societal decomposition, it has been lost for 40 years now.

So my opinion on this matter is pretty complex. I do not agree with distorting its original intent, nor do I see any benefit or fairness in making marriage a source of benefit.

It is here that the actions and focus should be directed. The banning of homosexuals from marriage because it is a sin is a rediculous argument. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God--that is why we need a Savior.

Answer 3

Call it 'Gayrraige'!

I believe - and just that - believe that the marraige was originally created as an instituition by thee religions and later the governments took over licensing it.
Govenrments are just afraid to use that right in a way that does not offend the people who originally created the instituition.
I am straight and married but I don't think in terms of sins and virtues when it comes to homosexuality.
Most- if not all -are willing to give the homosexuals the same rights as married people. The squabble is about the WORD 'MARRAIGE'.
For 10000 years people have marraige between man and woman. Now all of a sudden the homosexuals want people to change that belief -like it was a lightswitch turned on or off.
It would not hurt homosexuals to look at things from other people's perspective every once in a while.
I am of the opinion that Homosexuals be given all the rights by the government that are given to heterosexuals....and let the Churches, Synagauges, Temples and mosques decide what they wish to call Marraige.

If homosexuals must have a word for their union: call it 'Gayrraige'.

Answer 4

Marriage is not a secular right, it is an institution established by God. People were getting married in religious services long before the idea of civil ceremonies came along. Marriage, as God has always intended it to be is between a man and a woman. Personal rights has nothing to do with it. Today, everyone seems to be demanding their personal rights. No one wants to surrender themselves to God. God calls homosexuality a sin---not me, but God. Sin is what God says sin is. Murder and stealing are sins. Adultery and lying are sins and there are penalties for committing them the same as any other sin. Sin always has it consequences. The institution of marriage has a direct effect on the quality of our society. This institution is in trouble these days because it is not being respected. Allowing gays to marry is just another slap in God's face. I am not gay; therefore it is not possible for me to come up with an alternative solution to marriage or living together in an unholy relationship. I can say that sex and lust, regardless of the type and the genders involved, is no recipe for happiness. Happiness comes only through fellowship with Jesus Christ. The Lord loves gays the same as he loves heterosexuals, but he does not like homosexuality or heterosexual excessiveness.

Answer 5

Taking the original question without the details, I'd say it depends upon what action is being called "a sin" as to whether it should result in the denial of a person's rights. Some things religious people call sin secular people would also call crimes--murder and theft are obvious examples--while others are simply archaic rules that might have meant sense at the time they were imposed or might have been just as goofy then as now, based on racist ideas, bad science, or plain superstition.

Now to the specific question of homosexuality.

I share the view of many religious and non-religious people that homosexuality in itself harms no one and, therefore, should not be treated as a crime. As Thomas Jefferson might say, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." As it harms no one, there's no justification for denying gay people the benefits of marriage, if they desire to enter into that state.

Civil marriage is a civil right.

Answer 6

No, you miss-understand. Homosexuality is a sin alright, but it is the devastation it causes that forces a society to outlaw it. It is most unfortunate that our public schools in this country have chosen to promote a perversion as normal. Most people that accept homosexuality as okay were taught either in school or as a result of public school. In this country by law we have made it legal to kill a baby right up to a few minutes after it is born provided the mother wants it. Are you glad you weren't aborted? Just because its legal does not by any means make it right. The same goes for people who have degenerated to the lowest form of human being that is possible- perverts. Do you understand what these people do? Do you know what they do to little children and babies? Perversion is horribly wrong. It makes no difference if you are poor, rich, heathen or religious. Perversion will destroy anything you think is worth having. That's why. Theres more but it just uglier.

Answer 7

Any disapproval based on the notion of 'sin' can be safely ignored since 'sin' is a religious idea defined as transgressing against the orders of a deity, and since no such deity has never been demonstrated to exist (and is never likely to be), all claims of 'sin' remain invalid until the existence of said deity is proven. Clearly nothing can be a 'sin' if the specified deity doesn't exist. The onus is entirely on the religious believer to support their claim with proof.

So the answer to your question is no, a claim of 'sin' is not a valid reason to deny anyone anything, and in fact there is no valid reason to deny another adult a right that you yourself enjoy. If marriage is so great then its supporters should be happy that there is more of it, in the shape of same sex marriage, rather than arguing that there should be less of it.

Answer 8

Churches are autonomous (they make their own rules). The law is something else. There needs to be an alternative to "marriage", which is specified to be a union between a man and a woman. Some sort of legally binding civil union for gay couples so that they can share insurance benefits with their partners and for purposes of inheritance.

Answer 9

The problem in the way you phrase your question is that it actually answers it. Let me explain, you are weighting here a religious concept, sin with a secular or man made concept, a right. Rights are determined by men, according to their values and circumstances. In religious terms, there are no such things as rights, as sometimes rights are in the grey zone of political and social circumstances(true religion does not alters their thelogical aspects). You don't seem to want to actually find an answer here, but to find a reason not to alter your already held view, so this presents a problem here as you already have your mind made up. But same sex marriages is not a right but a choice. And therefore it is not a question of rights according to morale, but of a prostitution of a never ending array of made up rights to fit whatever vogue or circumstances arises. Religion must not taylor make accomodations to preferences of the people be them sexual or whatever so they fit in. This only shows that they acknowledge they are wrong but want to feel right. So your question is improperly phrased as it begs the question! Therefore we may have an improperly sustained or made up "right" that improperly wants to share in a properly fashioned set of rules or determinations. Since this is not a natural right (same sex marriage) the sin question does not applies as far as the legality of the issue is involved, but involves the morality of the issue and in that case it is not a sin. I cannot grasp your definition of "secular rights", therefore you are actually improperly addressing the issue. Your example of adulterers and liars do not fit in this context as on a religious base they are also condemmed by the church. Besides you cannot make a point to get a right from two wrongs and thus is precisely one of the issues where you are incorrect. The correctional system is filled with people that due to their wrong doings are departed from a myriad of what you call "secular rights"(whatever they may be), so the state imposes their due process. Again, same sex marriage is not a right, but a choice that have been therefore regulated secularly to deal with it, but it has a domino effect in all aspects of social, economics and political life. Once these regulations acquire secular law status the whole aspects of statutes and laws have to applied or be redesigned for this choice not by true natural development but a forced implication on the issue. It is then that the proponents of this choice can argue for the spiritual counterpart design. You may be arguing for having a religious acceptance based on a secular acceptance, this my friend, is called bribery.

Answer 10

There is only "sin" if somebody can prove that a "god" exists. Until that happens, there is no such thing as "sin".

If the reich wing want to "defend marriage" they should make divorce illegal instead of preventing gays from marrying. The only way gay marriage could hurt straight marriage is if civic governments have a limited number of marriage licenses they sell in a year. Since there are no such limits anywhere, the argument is a false premise.