Gay Marriage

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Me too, but the doctor gave me a cream to rub on it and it's not a problem anymore.

Lol

I am a twit. Here's a couple of quick definitions.

EXEGESIS - The science of textual interpretation, usually referring
specifically to the Bible. The term "biblical exegesis" basically means
"the process of interpreting the Bible." The specific techniques employed
in the exegesis of Scripture are usually referred to as "hermeneutics."

As opposed to:

EISEGESIS - Eisegesis is from the Greek  meaning 'a bringing in.' It's root is from the two Greek words eis, meaning 'into,' and hegeisthai, meaning 'to lead.' i.e., to lead into, or by implication, the interpretation of a text by reading extraneous ideas into it (as opposed to exegesis).

In Exegesis one determines first what the bible teaches and then what one believes, in eisegesis the order is reversed and one's own beliefs on a subject are "read into" the text.

If this is impossible, the next best method is to eliminate the text entirely via higher criticism.

- SEAGOON

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Silat
Elfie substitute the word Jew for Homosexual and then decide if it becomes hate speech...
And it has been done and is still done.

What Church teaches that being Jewish is bad? (If I read your post correctly that is what you are saying?)

No pastor that preaches directly from the Bible is going to say  that.  I think the Mormon's might preach that. I used to work with a guy that was (iirc) a Mormon, he had some rather derogatory things to say about Jews.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin I don't consider them so, in Oregon at least, our referendum was passed to clarify a long standing interpretation of the law which stated,  “Marriage is defined as a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.”

The readers digest condensed version would read, "A contract entered into by males and females." Not males and / or females.

The county supervisors in Multanomah Co. (Portland) decided to interpret the law differently from the other counties in the state, and differently from the way it was interpreted in the past.  

Once again, the change was not pushed by right wing christian conservatives, but it was left wing activists looking to force the agenda.  That the referendum passed against their view by a considerable margin shows that the Co. supervisors miscalculated.

The referendum only upheld the precedence of 150 years of marriage law interpretation.

And I disagree, it dissallowed officially SSM.

How many times do I have to tell you that argument based on tradition are invalid for you to get it ?

Would you have a problem if Muslim wanted a law forcing all women to cover themselves completly in the US ?

Silat, this is pointless these people would still claim they are right even if you destroyed every single one of their argument logically.

Religion and logic cannot co-exist together.

[Jackal1]

See Rule #5

[Tilt]

If two folk want to live together and call themselves married thats fine by me.........

I dont see what right any state has to say otherwise....... certainly not on any religious basis.

heck if 2, 3, 4, 6, (insert number here) want to do so then thats fine also regardless of sex, colour or ethnic origin.

Now when they start claiming some of my tax dollar / pounds etc I'd like  a say.

And when they start shaping the minds and caring for the wealth fare of future generations I'd like to know they are going to take some care.

Infact what worries me most is when folk say I can or cannot do this or that because they have decided that their diety would not like it. Any form of religion based totalitarianism I really dislike.

[midnight Target]

See Rule #5

[Jackal1]

See Rule #5

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Maybe you can answer that.

Awww... come on Jackal, you forgot the 'nanner nanner'.

[Jackal1]

See Rule #4

[Chairboy]

C'mon, Jackal1, can you reign it in a bit?  You're making the opposition's work all that easier through your post.  

Those of us arguing against this discrimination are working to keep this civil and present fact based arguments, but you, a frequent poster for the anti-gay crowd, keep coming up with gems like 'Why are you in support, are you gay?' and 'PCers for pansies'.  

I don't imagine that posters like Seagoon and friends are wild about how your actions reflect on their reasoned arguments, but far be it from me to put words in anyone's mouth.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Elfie
What Church teaches that being Jewish is bad? (If I read your post correctly that is what you are saying?)

No pastor that preaches directly from the Bible is going to say  that.  I think the Mormon's might preach that. I used to work with a guy that was (iirc) a Mormon, he had some rather derogatory things to say about Jews.

No you missed the point.

It was an exercise to show you the hate in the argument.
If it makes it easier substitute the word Christian for Homosexual.
Tell me if that is tolerable to you.

[Silat]

Originally posted by AVRO1
And I disagree, it dissallowed officially SSM.

How many times do I have to tell you that argument based on tradition are invalid for you to get it ?

Would you have a problem if Muslim wanted a law forcing all women to cover themselves completly in the US ?

Silat, this is pointless these people would still claim they are right even if you destroyed every single one of their argument logically.

Religion and logic cannot co-exist together.

Yes Avro. I understand.
But it still makes me sad and I cant help but try to inject some logic.

You are correct that it is impossible to deal with irrational thoughts with logic.
Hate is ugly and combined with religious ferver it is even uglier.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Silat,

Up until Mass changed it's law, what was the law of the land?

Answering for you, it was that gay marraige was not an accepted norm.

Now the law is being changed to make gay marraige accepted as normal, or at least the attempt is being made to do so.  It is those in opposition to the traditional and accepted policies who are driving the change.  

As the present accepted policy is that of traditional marraige, it is not "Rightwing Christians" forcing their beliefs upon us as those beliefs are already accepted as law, it is those who are driving the change from the traditional norm forcing their beliefs on the "Rightwing Christians".

Very much like we forced the equality of blacks and women on America.... Try telling your wife that you dont support womens equal rights because the majority of Americans at the time didnt want it:) Hope your couch is comfortable:)
Sometimes the majority is wrong as they are in this case.

No one is forcing anything on religious people. If you dont want to be gay then dont be(many in here believe its a choice). If you dont want to have gay people married in your church then dont let them. If you dont like gays then dont talk to them.

You are saying that anything anyone does that doesnt fit their religion is forcing it on them. That is ludicrous.

No one is trying to force any church to accept gays in their fold. But religious people want to mandate that gays cant get married as the rest of us can.

The law of the land is and should be EQUALITY FOR ALL... How can anyone that claims to be an American patriot want anything else? Isnt that what our soldiers die for?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon, Jackal1, can you reign it in a bit?  You're making the opposition's work all that easier through your post.  

Those of us arguing against this discrimination are working to keep this civil and present fact based arguments, but you, a frequent poster for the anti-gay crowd, keep coming up with gems like 'Why are you in support, are you gay?' and 'PCers for pansies'.  

I don't imagine that posters like Seagoon and friends are wild about how your actions reflect on their reasoned arguments, but far be it from me to put words in anyone's mouth.

Well Im not really surprised at the non response of those who are hateful of gays.
You notice that they did not standup when my family was mentioned.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Silat Yes Avro. I understand.
But it still makes me sad and I cant help but try to inject some logic.

You are correct that it is impossible to deal with irrational thoughts with logic.
Hate is ugly and combined with religious ferver it is even uglier.

Ah ok, I see that your stand on the argument is similar to mine.

I really find this thread sad, people against gay marriages being allowed for those religions that want to do them is just insane.

I mean it doesn't force anything on anyone and yet they are against it.

Hard to imagine a more illogical position.

No, Jackal, I'm not gay.