Author Topic: Gay Marriage  (Read 11749 times)

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Gay Marriage
« Reply #60 on: June 24, 2005, 05:33:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Not so much nature as design. If, like the universe, life is to keep expanding there has to be procreation. Homosexuality doesn't provide that, so that's "against design".

Using a screwdriver as a hammer works after a fashion in limited instances but in the long run it really doesn't work to build things.

However, you want to beat on nails with your screwdriver.... it's your screwdriver.

That was simply beautiful.  I think I'm starting to tear up. :D
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Gay Marriage
« Reply #61 on: June 24, 2005, 05:36:11 PM »
Really?  Thank you!

I know a little shop in the Phillipines that will cut that into a brass plaque on teak for you to hang on the wall.

E-Mail me if you want the addy to preseve it for future generations.

No charge, btw. ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Gay Marriage
« Reply #62 on: June 24, 2005, 05:43:17 PM »
LOL, I don't think I need to go that far, but this really clinched it for me...

"However, you want to beat on nails with your screwdriver.... it's your screwdriver."

I love word play, and you sir "...use your tongue purtier than a twenty dollar potato"!
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Gay Marriage
« Reply #63 on: June 24, 2005, 05:44:28 PM »
Let's see the $20 first............... ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Gaylord

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Gay Marriage
« Reply #64 on: June 24, 2005, 06:06:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Is the issue of gay marriage within you or outside of you?

If you're not contemplating or in a gay marriage, it's outside of you.

Why do you worry about it if it doesn't really concern/involve you?


By this logic, then, unless you are African American the issue of civil rights shouldn't concern you....unless you were a woman the issue of women's right to vote shouldn't concern you...and unless you have children working in a sweat shop  then the issue of child labor shouldn't concern you.

BTW, you need to read Rule 5 again. I say that at the risk of violating Rule 6, but it sure seems like you are trolling to me.

;)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Gay Marriage
« Reply #65 on: June 24, 2005, 06:43:35 PM »
Actually, I fall more into this category, summarized by this clip from a book review:

Quote
The other not-so-pretty reality of life that Dyer suggests we face is that things are not fair, and they never will be. In chapter 8, "The Justice Trap," the author writes bluntly about the fact that injustice is committed every day and that if one has enough money one can get away with it. Poor people will rot in jail, while rich people get a slap on the wrist for the same crime.

It is not an "erroneous zone" (self-defeating behavior) to notice the injustices of this world; the erroneous zone is the belief that becoming incapacitated with anger, guilt, worry, or indignation, by the injustices will change anything. Many heroic people try to change the injustices, and they are to be commended. But they often fail because they are against impossible odds.

Year after year, century after century, the privileged few get away with what the rest of us do not. Is it fair? No! Should we convince ourselves that it is okay? No! Should we fool ourselves into believing incapacitating ourselves with worry and anger is going to change anything? No, again.

If you can do something to end an injustice, then do it. If you can't, don't feel guilty.


As far as the topic:

Native American saying: No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves.

Why do we insist on making this an "us vs them" thing?

On my "Rules Violations" (had to look them up):

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.

I'm not flaming, trolling or posting to incite or annoy. It seems to me that I've pretty clearly stated my position on this.

6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

Who am I moderating? You see asking questions as moderation?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Gay Marriage
« Reply #66 on: June 24, 2005, 06:52:48 PM »
I think he was saying that he was running the risk of violating #6 by telling you that you were violating #5, not that you were violating #5 AND #6, just that you were violating #5, and I think he was right that he was violating #6.  Fortunately, there is no rule against annoying repetitiveness, so I'm safe with this post.
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Gay Marriage
« Reply #67 on: June 24, 2005, 07:03:20 PM »
Ah, thanks. Read it too fast and missed that.

I think I'm going to have to print out all the new rules and post 'em by the monitor. Along with the explanations. And lawyers. We need lawyers.


You ever notice the "Rules of Golf" are in a small pamphlet but the explanations of the Rules of Golf are books that weigh 15 pounds?  ;)

And I'm NOT trolling. Don't know why anyone would think I am.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2005, 07:09:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by thrila
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans.  The argument it is against nature is flawed.


flawed true

incorrect....not at all.

It goes againsts all fasets of nature.  If all beings in nature fail to reproduce "naturally" because they are gay there is no more nature!

I like the answer that it would is self correcting in nature.  A species that can't propagate itself will infact cease to exist.  Hence homosexuality is against nature.  I say that because I think it's natural to survive and thrive.

Offline spitfiremkv

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
Gay Marriage
« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2005, 07:25:08 PM »
I'm all for gay marriage, but damnit, gay men shoud adopt every single piece of poo they ever make. they abandon their offspring with such carelessness, a crowd of them is ruuning around the sewers, hungry, unclad, confused, and they end up as fertilizer on some farmer's crop...how tragic@ :(

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Gay Marriage
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2005, 07:31:06 PM »
I'd say your post might be considered proof that they make less of it than you do, so don't sweat that either.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Manedew

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1080
Gay Marriage
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2005, 08:14:28 PM »
How is sex defined anyway?

Genetics?

what about XXY's?  or XX with a tiny piece of Y or XYY's or whatever?

Or is it apearance?? many children are born every day with ambiguous genitalia

Not to meantion this is a CIVIL issue SEPERATE from the Church.... ya know seperation of church and state.

You can't even answer tho's questions above... noone can, and your going to tell two 'women' or two 'men' they can't have the same legal rights as everyone else?  As SOB said .. it has nothing to do with Churches or relgions of any kind....

Word's are generelizations by nessceity ... don't let it define your thinking.  It's not good for your brain :)

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Gay Marriage
« Reply #72 on: June 25, 2005, 01:50:56 AM »
I had thought this thread was locked, so I didn't believe I'd get an opportunity to post in it. Actually, I had intended to go to bed, after reading a couple of emails... But...

[Anyway, before I get started, please understand that throughout, I am not speaking from malicious intent, but simply from deep conviction. Personally, for many years prior to becoming a Christian, I would have said, "whats the big deal?" in regards to gay marriage. I did not grow up with any ingrained anti-gay or "homophobic" tendencies that I am aware of, and my change of view regarding these issues came about simply as a result of my conscience becoming "captive to the word of God" as Luther would have put it. I have no desire to "gay bash" (and that despite the fact that prior to going to seminary, and becoming a minister I very nearly lost my job due to homosexual activism in my workplace) nor has confronting homosexuality ever been a key part of my ministry, any more than analyzing and confronting any other part of the contemporary culture]

Where does one even begin on this subject? Well, let me outline my basic theological presuppositions on the subject of marriage generally.

I. What is Marriage anyway? A.A. Hodge, a 19th Century teacher at Princeton Seminary, answered that question very well, and for the sake of time, I'm going to use his definition (which is old enough, 1869, to be in the public domain). I should state that this is the Christian definition of marriage, but it is also one that prevailed in America and the British Isles for hundreds of years:

"Marriage was ordained of God, and is therefore a divine institution. This is so—
(1) Because God created man male and female, and so constituted them, physically and morally, that they are mutually adapted to each other and are mutually helpful to each other under the law of marriage, and not otherwise; and
(2) Because the law of marriage, the conditions of its contract, continuance and dissolution, are laid down in the Word of God.

Hence it follows that marriage is a religious as well as a civil contract. No State has any right to change the law of marriage, or the conditions upon which it may be lawfully constituted or dissolved, as these have been ordained by God. Neither has any man or woman a right to contract any relation different in any respect, as to its character or duration, from that which God has ordained as marriage. Hence marriage is a human contract under the limits and sanctions of a divine constitution, and the parties contracting pledge their vows of truth and constancy to God as well as to each other and to society.

But it is also a civil contract, because every State is bound to protect the foundations upon which social order reposes, and every marriage involves many obvious civil obligations and leads to many civil consequences touching property, the custody of children, etc. The State must therefore define the nature and civil effects of marriage, and prescribe conditions upon which and modes in which it shall be publicly acknowledged and ratified or dissolved. It is of the highest importance that the laws of the State do not contravene the laws of God upon this subject, but be made in all respects to conform to them. In all cases of such conflict Christians and Christian ministers must obey God rather than men. ... The law of the land is to be obeyed for conscience’ sake whenever it does not contravene the higher law of  God. When it plainly does so, then Christian men and church sessions are to act themselves and to treat others just as if the ungodly human enactment had no existence, and then take the consequences."


II. "What does the Bible Teach About Homosexual Practices?"

This is almost a pointless endeavor, simply because the biblical witness on this subject is so clear. In both the Old Testament and the New, homosexual practices are spoken of as:

1) An Abomination  punishable by death under the O.T. civil laws (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
2) A Vile Passion (Romans 1:26)
3) Shameful, unnatural, and an error (Romans 1:27)
4) A sexual sin common amongst those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9)
5) Unholy, Profane, ungodly, lawless, insubordinate, sinful, and contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:9-10)
6) Sexual immorality (Jude 1:7)

Thus Homosexual Sex is considered by the bible to be a sexual sin, on the same plane as fornication, adultery, or bestiality. Just as, from a scriptural standpoint, adulterous sex, is never not sinful, so too homosexual sex is always  sinful as well.

Incidentally, the Greek text of the New Testament quite clearly dilineates homosexuality using unambiguous terms like malakos and arseneokoites both of which terms were in common use in Hellenistic culture. Hebrew is more difficult, it uses compound terms "Man who lays with a male as with a woman" for instance.

III. What is the Biblical teaching on "Gay Marriage?" If we understand the above, coming to a conclusion about what the bible teaches regarding "gay marriage" is all too easy (but admittedly not very satisfactory to our modern culture)  

Marriage is a creation ordinance, it was ordained to be between one man and one woman, and as in the discussion of Christian marriage in Ephesians 5, this essential formula never changes, even despite the sinful polygamy of the patriarchs.

We read in scripture that Marriage was ordained for:
1) the mutual help of husband and wife ( Gen. 2:18; Eph. 5:28; I Peter 3:7)
2) For the increase of mankind with legitimate issue (Gen. 1:28; 9:1)
3) To provide God and his church with holy offspring (Mal. 2:15)
4) And for preventing of uncleanness. (1 Cor. 7:2,9)

Manifestly "gay marriage" cannot do any of these, and in fact viewed biblically, Gay marriage is designed precisely for the facilitating of sexual uncleanness rather than its prevention. Therefore, from a scriptural perspective, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron as impossible as "adulterous marriage" or "edifying pornography"

Well that's enough of the theological  for tonight, sorry its so long, I'll try to get to pragmatic arguments tomorrow.

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Gay Marriage
« Reply #73 on: June 25, 2005, 10:46:10 AM »
Hi Seagoon,

Implicit in your post seems to be that marriage is necessarily religious.  Marriage existed before Judaism/Christianity, and can be completely secular.  Mine is, for example.

With that established, it seems pretty clear that using biblical interpretation to determine what should be recognized as the law of the US (which must not respect the establishment of state recognized religious institution) is counter indicated.

Regards,

cb
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Gay Marriage
« Reply #74 on: June 25, 2005, 11:49:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Manedew



Not to meantion this is a CIVIL issue SEPERATE from the Church.... ya know seperation of church and state.

You can't even answer tho's questions above... noone can, and your going to tell two 'women' or two 'men' they can't have the same legal rights as everyone else?  As SOB said .. it has nothing to do with Churches or relgions of any kind....



Two woman or two men you mentioned in your post have EXACTLY the same civil rights as EVERYONE else does (with the possible exception of minorities, we've allready given them "special" rights)  What you are wanting is to give them addtiional special rights just for them.

in addition I re-read the constitution of the United States and I didn't see "seperation of church and state" in it.  Am I missing some kind of "special rights" amendment?