Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on June 23, 2005, 02:17:20 AM
-
So as not to hijack the other thread about child custody, I'll bring this to a new thread.
Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.
Not to single out Urchin, but I think this statement sums up exactly the misconception that fuels the drive against gay marriage. This issue is not about religious marriage. It is about civil marriage, and in no way involves any church that doesn't want to be a part of it. Civil marriage is performed by a civil authority and the church is not involved...you are just legally recognized as a married couple.
Were it not for this misconception, I think a lot more of the middle-of-the-road folks would be leaning the othe rway on this issue. I imagine a lot of folks just don't like the idea that this would be forced on their church, and mistakenly think that's what at stake here.
-
Ah well thats allright then.
Don't want none of them momosecshuals in church huh
:rolleyes:
What in gods name does it matter what they do with each other and why shouldn't they have some legal status as a couple. Call it marriage, coupledom whatever but give them some legal status.
My best two neighbours are the gay couple next door.
-
I don't go to church, or believe in god, but I do believe in the right of a church to believe what they want and worship how they want within the limits of reason...(ie, no human sacrifices or sex with alter boys). But excluding homosexuals from their church, not allowing women to be priests, etc, that's their business not mine or the government's.
-edit- And in case it wasn't clear, I am in support of gay marriage. More specifically in support of including homosexuals in the current definition of civil marriage, rather than a separate civil union. Separate but equal has been done before, and it didn't work out all that well.
-
Personally (just my opinion), the govt should stay the heck out of it. I dont even like the idea of JOP or judges marrying people, but I suppose Athiests have to go somewhere. In my personal opinion, marriage is a religious issue. If there's a church out there that wants the flak from performing gay marriages, then more power to them. If a couple goes through the motions of their professed religion and gets married, and fills out the proper forms at City Hall, they should receive legal recognition as a married couple. Period. I think the only reason its such a big issue is that gays are currently denied marriage. If it were allowed, you'd have a brief flurry of marriages, and then it would die off into nothing. It's just like drugs or anything else "banned". People want what they cant have.
Are there bennies for gay folks to getting married? Sure. Are there bad things about it too? Most definitely. Mostly the recognition. They cant hide and be anonymous if they have to submit to public record and submit those records to the insurance folks at work. Anyway, let it happen and let the situation regulate itself. As it will.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Were it not for this misconception, I think a lot more of the middle-of-the-road folks would be leaning the othe rway on this issue. I imagine a lot of folks just don't like the idea that this would be forced on their church, and mistakenly think that's what at stake here.
Whoah. I love optimism.
However out to lunch it may be....
If you think this simple semantic solution will quiet their jihad, then be prepared for a shock.
There's no backing down. There's no "well okay, we can agree to disagree."
Capitulating to any other point of view - giving up any ground - is nothing other than a capitulation to Satan. Sound crazy? Yeah, me too.
You think they gonna compromise on hell? Come on. No - they aint. Their whole entire gig can be summed up as:
"Our way or bust." Because....
Thars no way to negotiate with Satan. There's no middle ground. Them and the Devil aren't gonna craft some nifty piece of bipartisan legislation. Forget about it.
There is only "my way" or highw... er, hell. So - not an option.
The sooner folks get that, the better they understand where these folks are coming from.
-
It may be a little optomistic, but I don't think by much. I think there are a lot more middle-of-the-road folks out there than by-the-book Christians or outright religious fanatics, and I think the latter two are what would more fit your description.
Frankly, given Oregon's leanings toward these types of issues in the past, I was suprised as hell to see it pass here...and that's the only thing I can figure. Well, that, or I was just way off in my perception of the situation here.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I think there are a lot more middle-of-the-road folks out there than by-the-book Christians or outright religious fanatics...
You're absolutely right. There are.
They aint bustin' loose a la Daltrey with the mic under a multi-million dollar "palace"....
.... but they're out there.
I wish to hell they'd speak up.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
People were getting married all over Europe and the rest of the world thousands of years before Christianity.
Infidel !!!!
Good point :)
-
There was gay marriage in North Africa at the time of Alexander the Great.
-
This is dissapointing. I thought SOB was going to propose me, and that we would move in (steal!) Fish's pink bubble house, and be happy forever.
:(
-
NEVAR give up, Saw! If there's any way to do it, I'm sure that way is in SF!
-
deleted - rule #7
-
you are all forgetting that this is not just a religious matter, married couples in the US get tax breaks and benefiets that gay couples could never hope to get regardless of how dedicated they are to each other. i dont believe that the pejudices are based on religion but rather "eeew thats nasty...how can we stop it?" kinda like anti-sodamy laws that were finaly repealed by the supreme court (now my girlfirend has no excuse:aok ). anyhow, i think all marriage should be like in france: legal cerimony in a courthouse followed by an optional religious cerimony.
-
I'm all for gay couples having the same rights that married couples have... especially in regards to medical coverage and taxes. I'm just growing increadibly weary of the fundamental errosion of the concept of "the married couple".
-
I think the gays should wait untill gay divorces are legal before they get married.
-
I think the largest problem most people have with it is the word "marriage".
If it were called anything else but with the exact same rights legally most people wouldn't have a problem with it at all.
Myself personally I am against Gays using the word "Marriage"
I find it insulting to the arrangement between my wife and myself
Throughout time in 99.9% of society marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, a HUSBAND and a WIFE. And I see no reason to change that for the sake of political correctness.
On the otherhand.
I have no problem with a union between two men or two women with all the same benefits and headaches that are currently granted by law to married men and women.
Call it a spousal union, domestic partnership, a Garriage (hmm theres one that has merit) or anything else. Just dont call it marriage.
Issue two. And I know this is going to be very unpopular with some here. But this is how I personally feel.
I am against Gay couples raising children. Particularly small children.
I've seen enough of it first hand to come to the conclusion it just doesn't work. Especially with small children say under age 10.
Im sure that these couples could provide all the love provided by a traditional family. But thats not all there is to it.
Men and women are hardwired differently, A gay but butch woman is not the same as a man and likewise a gay but feminine man is not the same a a woman no matter what way you try to slice it.
In each case I have personally seen. Its become VERY obvious to me the small child craves I would even call it hungers what is missing. Be it man or woman.
I could tell either overtly or covertly that they want and perhaps even need that other sex there.
Attempts at bringing members of the missing sex over for visits and spend time with the child seem to be helpful but little more then a temporary fix that doesnt last very long. In one case I even saw a child say "Mommy I love so in so, but shes a girl and want my own daddy like Jessica has" Now I could see this tore the women up inside and I honestly felt bad for them. But I also could see the childs point.
Sorry but it just aint the same
-
I'm just growing increadibly weary of the fundamental errosion of the concept of "the married couple".
How so? My marriage is a personal committment between my wife and myself. I said my vows to her, and the purely contractual issues again, define only our relationship. If you are religious then god is included as well. My decision to get married had nothing to do with other people; how I respect those vows is a personal thing and not socital; and anything that would end the marriage would be similarly between me and my wife.
You can trace the "erosion" of marriage 100 percent to heterosexual individuals, making individual, personal decisions that impact their individual marriages. If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for socitey where heterosexuals are concerned.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
You can trace the "erosion" of marriage 100 percent to heterosexual individuals, making individual, personal decisions that impact their individual marriages. If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for socitey where heterosexuals are concerned.
This makes absolutely no sense.
-
I've seen enough of it first hand to come to the conclusion it just doesn't work. Especially with small children say under age 10.
Doesn't work, or has some issues? Being the child of divorce had some issues for me (very much like your examples), but all in all it ended up working out pretty well. Being less wealthy and growing up in an upper middle class neighborhood has some issues, being the child of an interracial marriage has issues, being the child of handicapped parents has issues, being a child with negelectful parents (TV babysitter/workaholic father, etc.) has issues.
There are numerous "less than optimal" parenting situations around. But in the end, beyond clearly threatening absuive situations, people seem to grow up and get on with their lives.
Charon
-
BTW... there's alot of "technically" running around in this thread. The predominant use of that word is exactly what brings out the use of the words "erode" and "undermine". Quit trying to reason away gut feelings.
-
This makes absolutely no sense.
Marriage is an individual contract between a man and woman. If I cheat on my wife and the marriage ends, it's not TVs fault, or Rap music's, or the gays -- it's mine. I made that decision.
Only heterosexuals can marry = 100 percent a heterosexual issue today.
The erosion of marriage is therefore a failure of heterosexual individuals, unless you don't believe in personal responsibility.
Charon
-
Oh wow, I actually agree with Mini D.
As far as marriage goes, in a country that has its roots in any religion, marriage is a sanctified relationship in the eyes of [insert deity here].
I will have to plead ignorance though, I wasn't aware you could have an entirely secular "wedding" (or be wed, however the best way to put it is) by a government official. I thought even they used some token religious stuff. Maybe that is the best solution after all. If there aren't any churches that will marry gay people, then let the government do it. Seeing as how they are gay anyway, I find it a little tough to believe they are fearing hellfire and damnation lol.
As far as raising kids goes, I honestly don't think that two good gay parents would do any worse a job than two good straight parents would, to say nothing of two poor parents, or one. I think a lot of people fear that two gay people will raise one little gay person, but more goes into that than just the environment (as far as I know). You could be raised in the gayest household ever, but if you lack the biological traits for, well, gayness, then you'd still be straight (much to the chagrin of your parents? lol). The same goes for a gay kid raised in a straight household... even if your at-home environment doesn't set off some biological trigger, chances are some other environment will.
Well, it has been an interesting debate anyway :).
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm all for gay couples having the same rights that married couples have... especially in regards to medical coverage and taxes. I'm just growing increadibly weary of the fundamental errosion of the concept of "the married couple".
may be we should abandon term marriage, because it seems to fit only for religion people. All other seems to be fine with some term, whitch will describe their common legal status.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm all for gay couples having the same rights that married couples have... especially in regards to medical coverage and taxes. I'm just growing increadibly weary of the fundamental errosion of the concept of "the married couple".
Was thit reaction on my question from delted post ? ( i think so)
-
Urchin if homosexuality is biological then surely god made them that way. Why would it be a sin if he created them that way?
-
Originally posted by thrila
Urchin if homosexuality is biological then surely god made them that way. Why would it be a sin if he created them that way?
Sylli Boy ..... How the hell can you fly tiffie that well , when you are soooo uneducated....
Gay= Satan inside ;)
Les= Angel ..... Look at her honey, shes so lonely.. shall we help here :D
Actualy next step could be invitation of new Pope and establish brand new University of Exorcism :cool:
Those who will graduate could fillin gap in police structures :cool:
:lol
-
Lets let 'em register their gay tarded-ness.
Then it'll be easier to identify them (we won't have to check their decorating skills) when it comes time to round 'em all up to send 'em to gay concentration camps like hollywood, greenwich village and fire island.
..oh wait.. they migrate there naturally.
nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Marriage is an individual contract between a man and woman. If I cheat on my wife and the marriage ends, it's not TVs fault, or Rap music's, or the gays -- it's mine. I made that decision.
Only heterosexuals can marry = 100 percent a heterosexual issue today.
The erosion of marriage is therefore a failure of heterosexual individuals, unless you don't believe in personal responsibility.
Charon
Ah... sorry... didn't see the smoke and mirrors aproach.
Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.
So... in a thread about gay marriages, pointing that other things are even worse to the concept of marriage is a bit irrelevant. Once again... if you have to point a finger and say "what about them?!?!" then you've lost.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm all for gay couples having the same rights that married couples have... especially in regards to medical coverage and taxes. I'm just growing increadibly weary of the fundamental errosion of the concept of "the married couple".
According to the BIBLE we are all products of incest.
Im growing incredibly weary of the fundamentalists.
:lol
-
Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.
Somebody elses divorce has an impact on the vows you made to your wife? A gay couple getting married will impact your marriage how again?
I personally think this issue is smoke and mirrors for a lot of people (certainly not all and not saying you - I don't know you personally) who just don't like gays and want to punish them. "I may have to tolerate you as a member of society, but' I'll be dammed if you're going to get married or raise a child..."
Charon
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... sorry... didn't see the smoke and mirrors aproach.
Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.
So... in a thread about gay marriages, pointing that other things are even worse to the concept of marriage is a bit irrelevant. Once again... if you have to point a finger and say "what about them?!?!" then you've lost.
I don’t see Charon’s response as smoke and mirrors at all. He clearly explained that any “erosion of marriage” so far is the fault of married heterosexuals. You can’t blame gays until they actually get married; this really hasn’t happened yet, at least legally. It’s simple enough.
You could argue: “Gay marriages don’t work, or are wrong, because… (followed with some kind of reason or statistic.). But, that’s not the same as blaming gays for the failure of something that they have not been allowed to participate in.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Charon
I personally think this issue is smoke and mirrors for a lot of people (certainly not all and not saying you - I don't know you personally) who just don't like gays and want to punish them. "I may have to tolerate you as a member of society, but' I'll be dammed if you're going to get married or raise a child..."
I'll second that. I think Charon found an effective, non-belligerent way to express the opinion I share.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... sorry... didn't see the smoke and mirrors aproach.
Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.
So... in a thread about gay marriages, pointing that other things are even worse to the concept of marriage is a bit irrelevant. Once again... if you have to point a finger and say "what about them?!?!" then you've lost.
What is it about marriage that you feel is being eroded. And what specifically do you feel gay marriages would add that would further contribute to this erosion?
-
SOB
stop beating around the bush, just ask HIM to marry you...just don't adopt afterwards :)
-
Eagler, you know I'll never love anyone but you. Now come over here and give me some smooches, sweetcakes!
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I don’t see Charon’s response as smoke and mirrors at all. He clearly explained that any “erosion of marriage” so far is the fault of married heterosexuals. You can’t blame gays until they actually get married; this really hasn’t happened yet, at least legally. It’s simple enough.
He drew a correlation to something he felt was worse than the gay "marriage" issue. Tell me how that is anything but smoke and mirrors.
And.. gays have been "married" in Oregon. This was done because a gay city councel member decided to make a point of doing this in Portland without discussing it in any kind of city forum. The marriages were all anulled later, but the debate rages on.
To define a union between gays as a "marriage" is an erosion of the concept of marriage. To say that gays would be better couples than married folks is not arguing the point, it's simply reinforcing that the foundations are being continually deteriorated.
You could argue: “Gay marriages don’t work, or are wrong, because… (followed with some kind of reason or statistic.). But, that’s not the same as blaming gays for the failure of something that they have not been allowed to participate in.
eskimo
Actually, I haven't argued anything in regards to gay unions. Simply against calling them marriages. I haven't said gays are more or less likely to behave a certain way, make better/worse parents or stay together longer/shorter.
I also never said gays were to blame for the erosion of the marriage concept. I believe the insistance of allowing gays to be married does. In attempting this, yet another re-definition of a term occurs and yet another fundamental belief must be put asside. This is erosion. This whole discussion is simply proving my point. The only way to justify gay marriage is to point to the seedier sides and say "what about that?" We don't fix problems anymore, we use them as justification for more problems.
-
the religious conservatives would say that marriage is a religious definition applied to the spiritual and physical union between a man and a woman sanctified by God.
To me its all about the engineering blueprints. I accept male/female as the design goal/intent. Anything else seems to fall on the side of defective. Just looking at it from an engineering point of view.
-
Deleted
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
DELETED
-
Originally posted by Yeager
To me its all about the engineering blueprints. I accept male/female as the design goal/intent. Anything else seems to fall on the side of defective. Just looking at it from an engineering point of view.
To take the engineering perspective further, if that was true, then people who are gay would not have... compatible connectors. But the thing is, they do, and they enjoy what they do, which means that by the sounds of it, the 'design' is quite a bit more flexible then male/female.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
To define a union between gays as a "marriage" is an erosion of the concept of marriage. To say that gays would be better couples than married folks is not arguing the point, it's simply reinforcing that the foundations are being continually deteriorated.
...
I also never said gays were to blame for the erosion of the marriage concept. I believe the insistance of allowing gays to be married does. In attempting this, yet another re-definition of a term occurs and yet another fundamental belief must be put asside. This is erosion. This whole discussion is simply proving my point. The only way to justify gay marriage is to point to the seedier sides and say "what about that?" We don't fix problems anymore, we use them as justification for more problems.
I still don't understand what you feel is being eroded from the marriage concept. Is it simply that it is being changed in any way that you feel is eroding it?
I've always looked at marriage as being about love and committment. Therefor, the current problem is that homosexuals aren't included. The problem isn't that they want to be included. It simply doesn't make sense to me why they wouldn't be.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
He drew a correlation to something he felt was worse than the gay "marriage" issue. Tell me how that is anything but smoke and mirrors.
I don’t think that he was drawing a correlation to something worse at all. He was pointing out something very direct: don’t blame gays for the erosion of marriage so far.
It’s kind of like blaming female NFL football players for a problem that NFL football may be having. Blame all you want, but female NFL football players have not caused a problem because they don’t play in the NFL (I assume).
eskimo
-
He drew a correlation to something he felt was worse than the gay "marriage" issue. Tell me how that is anything but smoke and mirrors.
I don't think I did. I pointed out that any current erosion of marriage has had nothing to do with gays. Further, I fail to see (and you fail to address) what some general issue like divorce or a gay marriage has to do with any individual couple's marriage vows. My marriage is not erroded by anybody elses behavior. Other people's behavior had no influence on my decision to get married, or how I view my vows.
To define a union between gays as a "marriage" is an erosion of the concept of marriage. To say that gays would be better couples than married folks is not arguing the point, it's simply reinforcing that the foundations are being continually deteriorated.
I didn't say that. I said: "If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for society where heterosexuals are concerned."
Is not a monogamous, lifelong committed coupling an optimal goal where marriage is concerned for most religions? Where do I talk about “better” than married folk? All married folk should fall into this category.
I also never said gays were to blame for the erosion of the marriage concept. I believe the insistence of allowing gays to be married does. In attempting this, yet another re-definition of a term occurs and yet another fundamental belief must be put asside. This is erosion.
Is marriage a term -- a dictionary definition -- or is it a series of vows and contractual agreements (moral, contractual and usually - but not always - religious) between two people to join as one? Are not the individuals involved responsible for undertaking and maintaining those commitments in good faith, or is that somehow society’s responsibility now? If I bed the intern, then it’s societies fault? Too liberal for my blood.
You have yet to quantify your use of "erosion." Since homosexual marriage has not had an impact on the current state of marriage (a statistically insignificant handful of gay couples here or there not withstanding), please define the erosion and the specific causes and what should be done to turn things around. What existing behaviors and practices should we regulate/legislate in order to lessen erosion and reverse the trend?
Charon
-
A thought on this topic:
I sometimes imagine primitive man's early days with a groups of people devoid of both religion and civil order. For any number of reasons mankind adopted a form of what we call marriage. There was possibly little or no ceremony, maybe an exchange of valuable items as a show of affection. Some kind of simple social arrangement. What ever it was, it set them apart from the rest, and likely had some benefit for the raising and populating their areas of habitation. Families and larger Tribes were formed. Primitive forms of society accepted and enhanced this union for reasons we can try to guess at (reproducing families comes to mind), but it became ingrained in many different cultures.
Civil orders and Religions adopted and encouraged this convenient arrangement and blessed and enhanced its role with ceremony and official public notification. This is important since both Religion and Civil/Social orders significantly strengthened the only taboos for relations outside of marriage. Along the way, because of the way societies function, additional benefits were added to this recognized public unity. The ability to pass on inheritance freely without dispute, benefits of association, recognition, income, property rights, and so forth are passed on through the family which only comes after marriage.
At no point along the way until now has there been a real social need to have same sex unions. We must ask ourselves why? If we can find the fundamental reasons for why things are the way they are, we can discover wither changes to this natural progression will be harmful or beneficial. I doubt that the problems if any would be recognizable right away, but would have to be thought of in much longer terms than the here and now.
-
I apologise for not reading the whole thread, but I'd like to share an "ah hah!" moment I experienced on the topic of gay marraige.
I consider myself a conservative. I hadn't been able to figure out whats the big damn deal about gays wanting to officially marry each other. Why not just shack up if that's your thing, and STFU?
Well, I observed something interesting in a trial that forces me to look at the issue in a different way:
Do you believe that everybody is entitled to love someone spiritually and sexually? Do you believe that everyone is entitled to have a "significant other" - even gays?"
If you do believe it, reflect for a minute on how we come to love another person, how that person becomes our "significant other."
You get that way by communicating on a very intimate level with that person, and you tell that person things you would never tell anyone else. From this kind of getting to know someone else, usually the opposite sex, you may come to love one another. Some of us get married.
Flash forward to a courtroom where a man's officially married significant other cannot be put on the stand and forced to testify against her husband because it is protected speech under the Constitution. The Constitution acknowledges the dilemna a spouse would be put in when forced to take the witness stand against her spouse.
If we think its ok for gays to love each other, and we acknowledge that lovers tell each other things that they would never share with anyone else, is it fair for attorneys to be able to force a gay significant other to take the stand and be forced to tesitify under pain of imprisonment against their intimate significant other? (I'm talking about a demonstrable long-term relationship)
I'm not going so far as to say gays should be able to marry. I'm just saying that this true incident in courtroom opened my eyes up as to what the big deal might be to gays regarding gay marraige... just food for thought.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... sorry... didn't see the smoke and mirrors aproach.
Divorce is also eroding at the foundation of the concept of marriage. This is a valid point. It is not an excuse to continue to throw other sources of erosion in there too.
So... in a thread about gay marriages, pointing that other things are even worse to the concept of marriage is a bit irrelevant. Once again... if you have to point a finger and say "what about them?!?!" then you've lost.
So Mini if Gay marriage is given equal rights will you be tempted?
-
Originally posted by Charon
Doesn't work, or has some issues? Being the child of divorce had some issues for me (very much like your examples), but all in all it ended up working out pretty well. Being less wealthy and growing up in an upper middle class neighborhood has some issues, being the child of an interracial marriage has issues, being the child of handicapped parents has issues, being a child with negelectful parents (TV babysitter/workaholic father, etc.) has issues.
There are numerous "less than optimal" parenting situations around. But in the end, beyond clearly threatening absuive situations, people seem to grow up and get on with their lives.
Charon
I was/am a child of divorce also. I can say speaking for me I suffered greatly by not having that father figure around. Took paths I probably never otherwise would have. But I was also 13 at the time my parents split. My sister was 6
I could see the effect on her also. Fortunately eventually my uncle moved in with us for a bit and at least for her, semi took on that role.
But at least it was a steady adult male presence.
Yes in each of those cases there are "issues"
But n the case of a gay couple raising a child it is far less likely there will be a steady or even semi steady presence of a member of the opposite sex then in a gay one.
In your cases there are issues yes. but for the most part are involuntary circumstances
In the case of a gay couple it is a voluntary choice to subject a child to that situation which they might otherwise not need to be subjected to.
And just for the record I have a gay male couple that live right next door to me who are in complete and utter agreement with me on this.
They wont adopt any children for exactly the reasons I mentioned.
Ok perhaps your right. it is issues.
but you (not you specifically)are still intentionally subjecting children to circumstances they need not be subjected to and otherwise wouldnt be.
-
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?
-
I just gotta ask this. Gays say this is a discrimination issue I say well fine we are discriminating against them by not letting them marry the same sex.
But why stop there? YOU DONT THINK IT WILL STOP THEIR DO YOU? Why not let men and woman who are Zoophilias marry who they deem is their true love.
Why can't Zoophillias enjoy the same love, companionship, and tax benifits that Gays and Straits do?
Who are we to discriminate/why stop there?
Edit:
I've asked this question about this slippery slope many times. We start redefining things and there's no way to stop it.
The answer I have recieved is "people wont do that" "that's insane" or "people arent that crazy" They used to say that about gays and now they have a parade in every city.
Still think no way check on the zoophilia recources on the right of this page http://www.zoophile.net/zoophilia.php
-
Gosh, GS, I suppose you could argue that slippery slope began 150 years ago when blacks were allowed to marry in the US. I think that was a pretty darn good development, but there were plenty of people at the time who made the same argument you are.
150 years from now, are you going to be looked at the same way as we look back on those people?
The slippery slope seems to be headed in the right direction, in my eyes. Your argument is classic strawman.
-
How about we stop it whenever there is no consent between the potential partners, as in Zoophillia?
I don't think the Ewe can really respond and consent when some guy whispers "I love Ewe!" in her ear.
This isn't the case with homosexuals is it? When they get hitched, don't both people involved still say "I do"?
Now a sheep and (let's just pick a stereotype at random) and a Marine standing before the altar, the Marine says "I do" and the sheep probably says "Bah!", right? Not really consent, as I see it. Perhaps the opposite.
OK, Guns... I admit using a Marine was an unfair shot at ya. I really should have made it a Sailor! ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now a sheep and (let's just pick a stereotype at random) and a Marine standing before the altar, the Marine says "I do" and the sheep probably says "Bah!", right? Not really consent, as I see it. Perhaps the opposite.
OK, Guns... I admit using a Marine was an unfair shot at ya. I really should have made it a Sailor! ;)
I think you made the better argument but you had to go there :rolleyes:
Chairboy you make a good argument as well but I have to point out how much more is "acceptable" in society nowadays vrs 150 years ago. Yes theirs still groups trying to hold on to the "good ole days" but the main theme is "tolerance" "multi-culturalism" and "diversity".
I think both are acts against nature itself what what the hay. Why don't we redefine what is natural and what isn't. That way we don't descriminate against the Zoophiles. They're people too and they have the right not to be offended just like gays...right?
-
C'mon Guns... don't tell me you're that sensitive!
I'll apologize if you like.
As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.
BUT if there's consent from both parties, I think it is their business, not mine.
With the "zoo" guys, there can only be consent from one party... that's not a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
C'mon Guns... don't tell me you're that sensitive!
I'll apologize if you like.
As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.
BUT if there's consent from both parties, I think it is their business, not mine.
With the "zoo" guys, there can only be consent from one party... that's not a good thing.
:lol :lol :lol :lol
tis a strange world we live in. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I don't think I did. I pointed out that any current erosion of marriage has had nothing to do with gays.
I'm sorry, but this is a play on words and outright fallacy. Are you saying that gay marriage has nothing to do with gays?Further, I fail to see (and you fail to address) what some general issue like divorce or a gay marriage has to do with any individual couple's marriage vows.
I didn't know I had to establish this. Fundamentally, it's a circular argument and is pointless to pursue. How marriage is defined affects everyone who is married. My marriage is not erroded by anybody elses behavior. Other people's behavior had no influence on my decision to get married, or how I view my vows.
A play on words, once again. The definition of marriage is eroding. If you are married, the institution is changing around you.
In the same regard, why is it important to be married at all? I mean... what's the big deal? For gays or for hetero couples? I don't have any objection to gays receiving the benifits of medical coverage as well as the curse of dink taxation. I do have an issue with trying to change the definition of marriage to accomodate people who feel left out because they don't fit.I didn't say that. I said: "If anything, homosexuals demanding the right to marry, and putting so much importance on it, is somewhat quaint and encouraging, IMO. An optimal religious goal for society where heterosexuals are concerned."
That's a very narrow viewpoint to take. I don't believe it's the optimal religious goal of any society to regard a homosexual couple the same way as a hetrosexual couple. As a matter of fact, I believe this cannot occur unless there is some kind of heavy handed restrictions placed on religion entirely.Is not a monogamous, lifelong committed coupling an optimal goal where marriage is concerned for most religions? Where do I talk about “better” than married folk? All married folk should fall into this category.
Ah... let's focus on the areas we want to highlight and pretend it has nothing to do with a man and a woman. There is a fundamental shift in the institution of marriage that is required to occur to acocmodate this. Surely you agree with this... right?
I'm not going to respond to the rest of it because it boils down to the "if they're really happy together they should be able to get married" defense. This is not what is being discussed. Well being and compatibility have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It has to do with an institution being re-defined. Argue that divorce does that to, or that domestic violence and promiscuity do that. Just realize that gay marriage is being lumped in with those things. That is not good.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I don’t think that he was drawing a correlation to something worse at all. He was pointing out something very direct: don’t blame gays for the erosion of marriage so far.
Umm... I'm not blaming gays for the erosion of marriage. I'm saying gay mariage is something that erodes the institution.
There is no exclusivity in that. Using the "let's put this in perspective" aproach does not help. Citing other things that have eroded marriage WAY more than this does not help. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the point of discussion.
-
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.
-
Originally posted by thrila
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.
Maybe they were exposed to it and they caught the disease. ;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by thrila
There is homosexuality in nature, it isn't exclusive to humans. The argument it is against nature is flawed.
I've never used this argument... but there's a flaw with your logic here. In nature, this is a self correcting condition. Homosexuality would be removed from the gene pool.
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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"!
-
Let's see the $20 first............... ;)
-
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.
;)
-
Actually, I fall more into this category, summarized by this clip from a book review:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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@ :(
-
I'd say your post might be considered proof that they make less of it than you do, so don't sweat that either.
-
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 :)
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
...match, game and set.
Congrats, Chairboy! I'm constantly amazed how religion seems to consider the partnership of marrige to be an exclusive secular deal.
It ain't... (insert religious brand here) does not dictate terms of partnership... it ain't even in the definition of the partnership.
According to Webster:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
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
chairboy that's beent wisted into seperation of church and state. The state HAS to recognize some sort of establishment in order to govern OVER it.
For those of you who say "how does them getting married effect me?"
I'm still looking for the article I read the day before but in it it said that a church was being sued by a private party to have their tax excempt status removed because the church refused to perform a gay marriage.
In the suit it sited that the refusal was "discriminatory" and as such a "bigoted" organization should not enjoy the benifits granted to it by the state.
you write a "special rights" law wether it be for minorities or homos it effects us ALL.
-
Hi All,
I had wanted to get all of my cards on the table prior to entering into dialogue on the subject, so I'll try to reply to Chairboy's excellent point in a following post.
Here I do want to discuss the pragmatic or practical arguments against gay marriage, because while I do not believe they have nearly as much weight as the theological arguments (especially for me) they are compelling in their own right. I should begin by giving a hat tip to Dr. Timothy Dailey, who compiled much of the following evidence from the CDC and other secular medical and psychological sources.
Marriage implies a monogamous relationship for life, yet the homosexual lifestyle is normally exceedingly non-monogamous
Webster's (1913) includes in it's definition of marriage: "the legal union of a man and a woman for life." I want to leave aside the "man and a woman" part for the moment because that is obviously the point in question, and concentrate on "for life."
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.
In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.
Other studies have tended to produce the same figures regarding the short terms of these relationships, and the general committment to promiscuity inherent in the lifestyle, for instance in his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
Both of these factors are so generally accepted within the gay community so there has been a corresponding drive not only to redefine the participants in a marriage, but also the parameters of a marriage so that it is no longer defined as life-long or exclusive.
But once we have done that, in what way is this any longer "a marriage"? A temporary, non-monogamous, cohabitation by two persons of the same sex ceases to have any relationship to the traditional definition of marriage and becomes merely an expedient to gain the legal status and attendant political benefits that come from the married state. i.e. insurance, inheritance, parental rights, and ultimately the perception of absolute equality with heterosexual married couples, all without the attendant social constraints.
Additionally, there are other factors that make the idea of conferring marriage benefits on homosexuals, problematic.
For instance, homosexual relationships tend to be more prone to domestic violence than heterosexual ones, for instance, in the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population." This evidence tends to be confirmed by police in a major cities who report a higher incidence of domestic assault and even murder within the homosexual community than without it.
There are a number of other factors that would seem to argue against creating the category of gay marriage with its attendant rights to adoption etc. including a dramatically reduced lifespan (43 amongst homosexual males according to the CDC), a much higher incidence of suicide (at least 6 times) and depression. As one ex-gay man working with a ministry in Philadelphia put it to me, "There's nothing "gay" about the gay lifestyle. Manic would be a better definition." This is a subjective assessment but it tends to confirm my own experiences counseling.
There are other lifestyle factors that could be called upon, but that should be enough to at least raise the question of whether this is a wise decision from even a pragmatic point of view, not the least of which is the legal slippery slope. Once we have so radically redefined marriage, what legal impediment could there be to further redefinition as to number of participants, or even their age and potentially even species? This may seem absurd to many, but at one time in Western History, the very idea of gay marriage was more than just absurd, it was unimaginable.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
...match, game and set.
Congrats, Chairboy! I'm constantly amazed how religion seems to consider the partnership of marrige to be an exclusive secular deal.
It ain't... (insert religious brand here) does not dictate terms of partnership... it ain't even in the definition of the partnership.
According to Webster:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
hang I hardly see how it is a civil rights issue either. I have yet to see anyone explain that one to me.
-
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature. Homosexuality exists amongst animals, so many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour i fail to see how it isn't seen as part of nature. If it is genetic it is possible for it to be passed on is it gene to be passed on if it is a recessive allele. Even if the mutation is counter productive, it is still a part of the natural world.
Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals. The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too. It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.
I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage. The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people. The problem is that there currently is no agreement.
-
Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature. Homosexuality exists amongst animals, so many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour i fail to see how it isn't seen as part of nature. If it is genetic it is possible for it to be passed on is it gene to be passed on if it is a recessive allele. Even if the mutation is counter productive, it is still a part of the natural world.
Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals. The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too. It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.
I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage. The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people. The problem is that there currently is no agreement.
if all animals in nature were homosexual how would they reproduce?
-
Funny how easily folks miss the point, maybe because they refuse to.
the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous
genetics can't define it ... neither can mere apperance .....etc etc SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH TESTIES AND OVERIES!
maybe your Bible defines Male and Female, but Sience can't.
and you folks come and try to define marrige as something between a man and a women?
I'd like to see you answer tho's questions that PHD's trained in THAT area can't.
I guess ignorance is bliss.
People just want the same rights everyone else has.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Funny how easily folks miss the point, maybe because they refuse to.
the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous
genetics can't define it ... neither can mere apperance .....etc etc SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH TESTIES AND OVERIES!
maybe your Bible defines Male and Female, but Sience can't.
and you folks come and try to define marrige as something between a man and a women?
I'd like to see you answer tho's questions that PHD's trained in THAT area can't.
I guess ignorance is bliss.
People just want the same rights everyone else has.
what world are you living in? Boys have a noodle Girls have a vigina! that's basic birds and bees. Science clearly defines male and female of the species. It is not hard to do.
HUMANs born with both parts are an anomoly NOT a normality.
If all animals in nature were homosexual they'd have a hard time reproducing. Even so they'd probably survive by some other means but it wouldn't represent 90% oF ALL NATURAL REPRODUCTION! There's that word again, nature.
EDIT: Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????
The right to get married?
-
Originally posted by Nash
The right to get married?
I don't know of a single law that says they can't get married like anyone else.
-
Then what's all the fuss?
-
Gunslinger not all animals have to be gay for it to be natural. Just like how not all animals are male. Nature is diverse.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Then what's all the fuss?
that's what I say. Why can't they be happy having equal rights. THat's not what they want though, they want special rights.
Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger not all animals have to be gay for it to be natural. Just like how not all animals are male. Nature is diverse.
I didn't say all animals had to be gay or strait. I said it's against nature to be gay. IF all animals were gay there'd be no reproduction hence no nature hence it would be against nature.
all this BS about there's no male and female species blah blah blah is just horse hocky.
I don't buy it for a minute that "many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour " There's just no way. If you want to get down to brass tax its UNATURAL for HUMANS to be gay. I said it, it goes against nature. Fact or not this is what I beleive. You can through all they psyco bable about whatever you want but for humans to reproduce naturally a man (male) has to have sexual intercourse with a woman (female). That to me is what nature intended. That is what comes NATURAL in most humans.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's what I say. Why can't they be happy having equal rights. THat's not what they want though, they want special rights.
Oh, I get what you're saying.
Gays have the right to marry women. Lesbians have the right to marry men.
And it's not a right to marry eachother, because no law was made to give them that right.... therefore they should be fine with that, because they aren't being denied the rights given to everyone.
While that's a valid argument, in a semantics kind of way, it's kind of obvious, no? Because everyone knows that. It's what they're challenging. It isn't about being happy within the rights given, but expanding them to include other people.
Because unless you want to see a family explode, it's generally not a good idea for gays to marry women. Same goes for lesbians marrying men.
So they will never get all of those other rights given to married couples. Seems like that's what they're really asking for.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
the words Male and Female might be conveint for you ..... but the defeinition is ambiguous
LOL!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh, I get what you're saying.
Gays have the right to marry women. Lesbians have the right to marry men.
And it's not a right to marry eachother, because no law was made to give them that right.... therefore they should be fine with that, because they aren't being denied the rights given to everyone.
While that's a valid argument, in a semantics kind of way, it's kind of obvious, no? Because everyone knows that. It's what they're challenging. It isn't about being happy within the rights given, but expanding them to include other people.
Because unless you want to see a family explode, it's generally not a good idea for gays to marry women. Same goes for lesbians marrying men.
So they will never get all of those other rights given to married couples. Seems like that's what they're really asking for.
I'm all for happieness. I just don't feel "special rights" are correct. Instead of going and changing the definition of marriage to suit a "special" group I would be more than happy if they wrote new laws that said two people could co-habitate in a "civil union" that said basically they had all the same rights as a married man and woman.
It wouldnt have to mention gay strait lesbian trans-gender or any "special group" it would just entail two people. No special rights, no infringment of civil rights.
-
Okay, lets assume that a law like that got passed. That they were granted a new right (the passing of which you now seem not to obeject to). And they now have all the same rights as a "married" couple exactly as you have described.
What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" other than they are spelled differently?
-
GS, can you demonstrate how that line of logic is different from installing seperate bathrooms for 'colored people'? The same rationale was used there.
"Nobody is saying the negroes can't use the bathroom, all we're asking is that they use a seperate bathroom. Why should we give them special access to our bathrooms? Why should we re-define what a bathroom is just to placate this minority group?"
BTW, if you disagree with the analogy, I've got a couple of friends who are quite comfortable equating marriage with a toilet. :D
Please note, I'm not saying anybody is racist, I'm just making an analogy to see how internally consistent the logic is.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay, lets assume that a law like that got passed. That they were granted a new right (the passing of which you now seem not to obeject to). And they now have all the same rights as a "married" couple exactly as you have described.
What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" other than they are spelled differently?
that's were you are wrong. There is no "they"
The law would not say gay strait lesbian transgender none of that.
It would say TWO PEOPLE could co-habitate. Strait people could enjoy this too.
The difference is you are not redefining something that is allready there and has been for many moons to fit the desires of a "special group"
-
In essense, you want to be able to say:
"Civil union? tsk tsk.... I'm married."
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
GS, can you demonstrate how that line of logic is different from installing seperate bathrooms for 'colored people'? The same rationale was used there.
"Nobody is saying the negroes can't use the bathroom, all we're asking is that they use a seperate bathroom. Why should we give them special access to our bathrooms? Why should we re-define what a bathroom is just to placate this minority group?"
BTW, if you disagree with the analogy, I've got a couple of friends who are quite comfortable equating marriage with a toilet. :D
Please note, I'm not saying anybody is racist, I'm just making an analogy to see how internally consistent the logic is.
you make a good point (even about the analogy :D )
The difference as I see it is this. Black white brown asian (any color) right now enjoy the SAME rights and treatment as any other color (except for whites they enjoy less rights than minorities in some cases but that is a whole nother thread topic)
where was I...oh yea. Creating gay marriage in your analogy would be like creating "black marriage" we don't write laws for special minorities we write them for everyone. Now you could, as Nash said, say this is a matter of symantics but it is wholey imporating to nearly 70% of the population. This is not another Majority is wrong the world is actual round debates this is one of deep rotted emotions and yes religion too (Disclaimor: I am trying to make my case by leaving religion out of this as not everyone is religious)
When the civil rights movements claimed victory we did not create special rights just for minorities and I don't think we should creat especial rights just for Gays now. No one is conforming Gays to have seperate but equal rights, they enjoy the same rights as eveyone else. Like I said before, if they want special rights than it should apply to everyone.
-
gunslinger following your logic if all animals were male there would be no reproduction, there for it is unatural for animals to be male.
Why don't you buy it that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour? Perhaps my wording may have been better if i said a significant proportion. Even some fleas have been found to exhibit homosexual behaviour.
-
Originally posted by thrila
gunslinger following your logic if all animals were male there would be no reproduction, there for it is unatural for animals to be male.
yea that's about it. If ALL animals were one sex and none of them reproduced asexualy we'd have a short existance.
Why don't you buy it that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour? Perhaps my wording may have been better if i said a significant proportion. Even some fleas have been found to exhibit homosexual behaviour.
what I don't buy is the MANY part. I also don't buy into because not very many animals have sex for pleasure like humans do. Maybe this whole comparison to animals and nature is of itself flawed.
If we confine nature to just humans that I would still say homosexuality is unatural and an anomily within nature iself.
I honestly don't beleive people that are gay can help it and they very well may be born that way. If we were ALL born that way from the very begining we'd have a hard time getting to were we are now don't ya think?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
what world are you living in? Boys have a noodle Girls have a vigina! that's basic birds and bees. Science clearly defines male and female of the species. It is not hard to do.
HUMANs born with both parts are an anomoly NOT a normality.
If all animals in nature were homosexual they'd have a hard time reproducing. Even so they'd probably survive by some other means but it wouldn't represent 90% oF ALL NATURAL REPRODUCTION! There's that word again, nature.
EDIT: Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????
I guess you never heard of Darwin? You know Evolution....
Science can only define a portion, a percentage.... they just throw out the standard deviation in hopes of makeing sense.... Evolution is based around that standard deviation really. Whats more succsessful? That's what becomes the mean, the average into the future.
Pleanty of a-sexal creatures on the planet ... like the common earth worm for one. There is a lizard that the 'male' will act and look 'female' to avoid a larger dominant male and then successfully mate with the nearby female-without a fight. There are monkey's that are bi-sexal with some of the largest testies of any primates. Maybe due to their sexaul vigor? They have sex constantly, with male or female monkies, and are remarkably potent.
general thinking is central to being human .... it doesn't make it correct however.
generalizations are useful...... don't let them rule you. Why do you think it took sooo long for Evolution to be understood by humans? .... it's contrary to our general thinking.
Would you prefer human's don't evolve? if you want us too .. your going to have to accept the deviations for what they are.
well that's my POV
-
Pleanty of a-sexal creatures on the planet ...
are Humans "naturally" in that catagory?
They have sex constantly, with male or female monkies, and are remarkably potent.
they wouldn't be homosexual now if they are having sex with both genders now would they.
Would you prefer human's don't evolve? if you want us too .. your going to have to accept the deviations for what they are.
I respect that this is your POV but are you saying that becoming gay is the way humans are to evolv?
to me that would mean that you are saying the entire family structure that we've enjoyed for the past, oh I don't know, lets just say 2000 years are now the ways of the caveman.
I don't feel I am making a generalization when I say homosexuality goes against nature. Nature has it in the cards for us humans to reproduce sexually. To me when a couple wants to conceive a child any other way it is "un-natural" (not to say that's a bad thing cause it's not) but it doesnt go along with the natural order of things.
I'm sure nature would evolve and survive if every man on earth turned into elton John but compared to humans of today it would be unatural.
-
No i'm saying it's diversity... it's nature tryign new paths
they wouldn't be homosexual now if they are having sex with both genders now would they.
You ignore Love, which is central to marriage and possibly an emotion unique to Humans.
What if a bi-sexual person falls in love with a person of the 'same sex'
Proably not a problem with monkies
I respect that this is your POV but are you saying that becoming gay is the way humans are to evolv?
Maybe evolution is makeing sure that we don't need to be asexual, or whatever.
You assume a whooooole lot to make your points IMHO
My point is basicly ... don't assume.
-
Manedew,
I just go back on the basics of survival I guess. Homosexuals have no place in a species trying to survive and propagate. I veiw it as a vanity (anomaly) that shows up when humans are at their peak and don't have to worry about being fed or reproducing.
I don't think I'm assuming much in the above statement but hey that's just me.
-
I point out how bi-sexuality can make a speicies actually reproduce better.
Tho's monkies have big testicals, likely from thier bi-sexuality
......
Then you turn around and ignore the problem of Love that humans have.
........
ethier your not reading my stuff .... or your logic fails me.
-
Actually, GS, your analogy to "black only" marriages doesn't fit. This wouldn't be a special right just for homosexuals. Just as you say the current definition of marriage gives the same rights to hetero and homosexuals, allowing two men or two women to marry would give that same right to hetero or homosexuals. It'd still be marriage, and you'd be just as free to marry a man as a homosexual man would be.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Actually, GS, your analogy to "black only" marriages doesn't fit. This wouldn't be a special right just for homosexuals. Just as you say the current definition of marriage gives the same rights to hetero and homosexuals, allowing two men or two women to marry would give that same right to hetero or homosexuals. It'd still be marriage, and you'd be just as free to marry a man as a homosexual man would be.
but as you are saying we'd be changing/redefining current law to include a special group. we'd be creating laws just for gays.
If we created civil unions for EVERYONE i'd be fine with that. It doesnt redefine Marriage and it doesnt give special rights to minority groups
PS
why do people reply to me as GS. It reminds me of GSscholz. I'd prefer guns if it's all the same but oh well. :)
-
Whatever you say GS.
(lol I was thinking the same thing)
-
Originally posted by Manedew
I point out how bi-sexuality can make a speicies actually reproduce better.
Tho's monkies have big testicals, likely from thier bi-sexuality
......
Then you turn around and ignore the problem of Love that humans have.
........
ethier your not reading my stuff .... or your logic fails me.
You're the one telling me I ignore love then say love isn't quite applicable in your example....
I'm no zoologist but one could probably surmise that the monkeys elnarged testicals came are the cause of their bi-sexuality and not a product of. IE: the bigger testies make them produce more testosterone hence the increased sexual activity or need for there of.
I'm sorry but I really don't see how gender on gender procreation is helpfull to a species as a whole. Your analogy of the huged testied monkey fails to bring up or show applicablity/example of lesbian monkeys as well.
EDIT:
And just to point out I've actually enjoyed this discussion/debate. No one has gone off the handle and everyone so far that's had any imput has stayed on focus. It just goes to show we can discuss a contraversial topic w/o crudness.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
but as you are saying we'd be changing/redefining current law to include a special group.
So? We're excluding them now, it only makes sense that we'd include them. It's an oversight that should be corrected.
I never though GS made a lot of sense for you, I was just following the crowd. Guns is better.
-
Originally posted by SOB
So? We're excluding them now, it only makes sense that we'd include them. It's an oversight that should be corrected.
I never though GS made a lot of sense for you, I was just following the crowd. Guns is better.
How are we excluding them now? They have the same rights as everyone else. They are humans, they are allowed to get married just like everyone else to a person of the opposite gender.
like I said before:
I'm all for happieness. I just don't feel "special rights" are correct. Instead of going and changing the definition of marriage to suit a "special" group I would be more than happy if they wrote new laws that said two people could co-habitate in a "civil union" that said basically they had all the same rights as a married man and woman.
It wouldnt have to mention gay strait lesbian trans-gender or any "special group" it would just entail two people. No special rights, no infringment of civil rights.
thanks on the GS btw.
-
Again, you say you don't want "special rights" granted to them, but are all for the granting of "special rights" as long as they are called something different.
It's a name thing with you.
Because those rights would be the same. The only difference is the name. What is it about the name?
-
Howdy Chairboy,
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you...
Originally posted by Chairboy
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.
Well, I'll admit that I believe that marriage is what is called in theology "a creation ordinance" i.e. that it traces its roots all the way back to the very beginning, and indeed we don't find any historical records of any ancient civilization that do not record male/female marriages. Marriage as the union for life between one female and one male goes back as far as recorded history, so even if one doesn't believe the biblical record of history, you are still stuck with the fact that marriage as outlined in the bible has always been the norm. True, some civilizations have allowed for polygamy, but they are far less numerous and polygamy tends to be the exception, rather than the rule, even in the civilizations that practice it. It also tends to inevitably produce far more friction and problems (due to human nature) than it potentially solves.
Regarding your point that secular marriages exist. Yes, secular marriages can exist, I was raised in the midst of an almost entirely secular family myself and that was the norm amongst my friends (some nominal Jews and Catholics, but almost universally non-observant and atheistic at heart). But if I can make an analogy, I can live in a kingdom, declare my independence, and deny that the king is my ruler or that his laws have any sway over me, but my views do not change the fact that he is the king and that his laws exist. Secular marriage is a fact of modern life, but "is" does not prove or even imply "ought."
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.
The problem is that our system of laws and customs and mores still devolves and in a sense depends upon Christian ethics. In fact the entire Constitution rests upon the idea of "natural laws" and "rights" that are "God given." The founders assumed that men had rights not because they were ceded by the state, but because they had inalienable prerogatives granted by God and that the state existed to safeguard these rights. In fact, they believed (with the English whigs) that a state became tyrannical precisely when it exceeded the powers and duties delegated by the Created. This idea can even be found in the writings of pagan writers like Cato and was certainly explicit in the writings of the political writers of the 17th century (Rutherford in his Lex Rex for instance) who so influenced the founders. As Adams himself put it: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So no matter how we view it there is a connection in our legislative and juridical history between God's laws and our own. In fact, the idea that our laws would directly contravene those of God or "natural laws" was considered repugnant for hundreds of years. We might, for instance, err in our understanding of God's law - for instance in prohibiting mixed race marriages when no such biblical prohibition exists - and then correct that later, but to overturn thousands of years of history and jurisprudence and expect everything to go well, as would be the case if we legalized gay marriage, is overly optomistic to say the least.
- SEAGOON
-
What rights do heteroexuals have that gays do not have?
Gays can marry an opposite sex partner if they wanted.
Heteros cannot marry same sex partners, just like gays can't.
I don't see any discrimination.
-
Seagoon, it would seem that your entire argument relies upon your belief that the Government was founded upon and serves to protect theocratic doctrine.
Because if you take that idea way, what's left of your words?
And where does that leave your argument?
We must assume that foundation to be true, but I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. Therefore, what results doesn't amount to much I'm afraid.
-
The fact is that, in the US, society has decided that gay marriage is against the law. It's not different than poligomy being against the law.
Nobody is being descriminated against.
If people say gays should be able to marry, then why not allow people to marry multiple people at once or marry their relatives if that what's people *really* wanted to do? Aren't we descriminating against those people?
The gay marriage argument is weak to the point of being laughable in my opinion.
-
Nuke, maybe read back a few pages. The "no special rights" and farm animals thang has been covered.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, maybe read back a few pages. The "no special rights" and farm animals thang has been covered.
Then why do people still want to allow gays to marry? :p
-
Because there was a difference of opinion.
Doesn't mean we gotta rehash it for your sake.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Because there was a difference of opinion.
Doesn't mean we gotta rehash it for your sake.
I admit, I didn't read that far back, so lighten up.
Still, I guess there is no argument that no descrimination is taking place. A hetero has no more or less rights than a homo no matter how you slice it.
-
bah.
-
I'll even come right out and say it. I don't like the idea of homos getting married. Right now, I am in the majority and the law stands as society's majority have chosen. It's that simple. No one is being descriminated in any way, and I'd challenge anyone to argue otherwise.
It's a moral argument and law when it comes right down to it. Just like poligomy is illegal because society has decided it was not moral. Just like lots of things society decides is tabbo and made illegal. Just like you cannot marry your sister.
The only definition of marriage I agree with is that it's between a man and a woman. Simple and good.
-
Hi Thrila,
I hope you don't mind if I address your points to Gunslingr as well. I apologize for butting in...
Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature. Homosexuality exists amongst animals,
"Nature is", as the saying goes, "red in tooth and claw." While homosexual behaviors amongst animals are far less common than you seem to be implying, that animals do it is no argument for the acceptability of any behavior amongst humans.
Animals also routinely practice or engage in acts of cannibalism, incest, infanticide, have sex in public, urinate or defecate to mark their territory, and routinely eat one another alive. I don't believe that the fact that they do these things "in nature" is a good argument for judging them to be good and acceptable behaviors for humans and legislating accordingly. People, by the grace of God, are different from the animals and we have historically striven not to take our legal standards from them.
Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals. The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too. It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.
I'll agree with you there, marriage has suffered across the board, but I would strongly argue that this has happened as a direct consequence of our abandonment of our former standards regarding marriage. This is actually a much better argument for strengthening our current philosophy regarding marriage not further weakening it. Since marriage is the primary building block for society, the collapse of marriage is something that will inevitably affect us all.
I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage. The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people. The problem is that there currently is no agreement.
Only to a degree, you and I can argue about the meaning of a word, and we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. Additionally, we need to discern that marriage is not just a word, it is an institution. I am obviously arguing that this institution had a divine author and that he fixed the defintion for that institution simply but exactly: One woman and one man for life. Attempts are currently being made to massively redefine the parameters of that institution, but if there is a fixed standard, then the more we redefine the less we have a "marriage" and the more we have something else entirely. {please note that "love" is not actually part of the definition of marriage, it should be a component to a healthy marriage, but it is not part of the definition}
I would argue that 2 men temporarily in a non-exclusive sexual relationship for a period of time meets none of the criteria for marriage and that to call it such is to negate the original meaning of marriage and come up with an entirely novel term. It would be like my saying, "I don't like the exclusivity of the definition of "charity"" - I want it to mean my having good intentions towards the poor. There, now I can be charitable while simultaneously doing and sacrificing nothing.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Nash
Again, you say you don't want "special rights" granted to them, but are all for the granting of "special rights" as long as they are called something different.
It's a name thing with you.
Because those rights would be the same. The only difference is the name. What is it about the name?
Again,
There are no "special rights" being created in my ideas about civil unions. ANYONE could get a civil union, gay strait lesbian transgender it wouldnt matter who you were everyone would be created equally, nothing is redefined, everyone should be happy but everyone knows the gays wouldn't like it.
(i'm just ranting now this has nothing to do with the point I just made) They are a minority group and like most minority groups they crave special rights and special attention. If gays were treated just like everyone else they'd scream they were being "normalized" or something and cry foul just to cry. A famous black woman can't even speak at an Ivy league school about her life experiences with out the local gay group making up a stupid word like "gnedernormative discrimination" and complaining about it. I don't condone gay bashing or hate crimes, I wish everyone was treated as equally worthless as they actually are in real life.(/rant)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Again,
There are no "special rights" being created in my ideas about civil unions. ANYONE could get a civil union, gay strait lesbian transgender it wouldnt matter who you were everyone would be created equally, nothing is redefined, everyone should be happy but everyone knows the gays wouldn't like it.
Do these civil unions repleat with all these new rights between gays currently exist? No?
Then it's new. It'd have to be created.
The only difference it seems is that these exact same sets of rights be called a different name. It's the only difference I see here, Gunslinger.
A name thing with you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Do these civil unions repleat with all these new rights between gays currently exists? No?
Then it's new. It'd have to be created.
The only difference it seems is that these exact same sets of rights be called a different name. It's the only difference I see here, Gunslinger.
A name thing with you.
no I'm not dispermitting a strait couple from having a civil union either. What I like about my idea is that it creats something for EVERYONE instead of redfine marriage for a few people who don't fit the mold for it.
again no "special rights" <--when I say this I mean that we arent legislating for the sake of ONE group.
-
If you make your "civil unions" a law encompassing gays, then you are indeed talking about the creation of new legislation based on the wishes of that minority.
No way around that.
And you have trouble with doing this as it relates to the word "marriage," but are comfortable doing it (and exactly the same thing), if it were named "civil unions."
It's a name thing.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Seagoon, it would seem that your entire argument relies upon your belief that the Government was founded upon and serves to protect theocratic doctrine.
Because if you take that idea way, what's left of your words?
And where does that leave your argument?
We must assume that foundation to be true, but I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. Therefore, what results doesn't amount to much I'm afraid.
Hi Nash,
This will probably be my last post on this subject for tonight. I have to get ready for tomorrow, so apologies if I don't reply for a while.
Actually Nash, even as a non-theist, your life and liberty are best protected in a society that adheres to the principle that there are inalienable rights and laws that devolve from a benign creator, a society that believes that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
This means, for instance, that even if I disagree with your beliefs, your right to life and the law "you shall not murder" means I cannot, indeed MUST NOT, kill you for them. You will not get the same assurances in atheistic societies founded on Marxist or Nietzschian principles.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You're the one telling me I ignore love then say love isn't quite applicable in your example....
I'm no zoologist but one could probably surmise that the monkeys elnarged testicals came are the cause of their bi-sexuality and not a product of. IE: the bigger testies make them produce more testosterone hence the increased sexual activity or need for there of.
I'm sorry but I really don't see how gender on gender procreation is helpfull to a species as a whole. Your analogy of the huged testied monkey fails to bring up or show applicablity/example of lesbian monkeys as well.
You try to point out that homosexuilty doesn't ouccur in nature ... I happen to agree with that in some respects ..... rarely do you find an animal that's ONLY homosexal ... what you will find pleanty of is Bi-sexual behavior like with these monkies......
Human's are much more complex and have emotions like love.
You used the arguement that it's aginst nature .... I feel that it doesn't hold water .... Love is just another reason why...
apples and oranges... with human's and animals .... but pleanty of diversity, bi-sexuality and asexuality in nature .... so ethier way I see it as a moot point.
However we have love, and with it comes marriage..... most animals don't have monogomus relationsships, but they do exsist......
You can define to me the average human 'male'... as a statistic..... we are too diverse to say anything otherwise.....
So does you definition of marriage only include the average 'male' and average 'female'? Or do you make room for diversity?
lets be clear here.
what if a 'woman' clearly looks female, can reproduce, but has a bit of a Y chromsome with her two XX's? Is she allowed to marry a 'man'? or does that Y make her a 'Man' who can only marry a 'Woman'?
Do you just want to call tho's people freaks and move on? Sorry but they are as Natural as YOU. I've spelled the reasons for it quite well I think. And if you define them ... where does it start and stop?
_____________________________ ______
I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, did 'God' tell you? The only reason I see from most people who fight this is some religous beliefs. All the other points I've seen are false and moot, just as religion is moot.... or do you want to move back to a society where you have to be a certain religion? ... noone expects the Spanish Inqustion.
I don't think we live in a black and white, discrete world. Would be kind of boreing if we did IMHO.
-
Hey Seagoon. ;)
Well, I too believe in inalienable rights. That have existed, forever.
But just because a belief about those rights rose up, does not mean that this belief and its believers can now presume to call them their own. And then to talk to me about how, if I don't particularly care for those beliefs, that I must not care about those inalienable rights.
Nobody owns them. That includes the church.
That's what makes them inalienable.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
So does you definition of marriage only include the average 'male' and average 'female'? Or do you make room for diversity?
Sure. Marriage also includes not so average as well. In the "pioneer" days woman married at 14 or 15. Now a days that's not so acceptable.
lets be clear here.
I never said homosexuality does not occure in nature I was arguing against your post that made it sound as if it was the cornerstone of nature. I don't think animals are homos I think they have same gender sex because it's instict to stick their u-know-what's somwhere and they can't control themselves.
what if a 'woman' clearly looks female, can reproduce, but has a bit of a Y chromsome with her two XX's? Is she allowed to marry a 'man'? or does that Y make her a 'Man' who can only marry a 'Woman'?
Do you just want to call tho's people freaks and move on? Sorry but they are as Natural as YOU. I've spelled the reasons for it quite well I think. And if you define them ... where does it start and stop?
look I'm not trying to be rude but we could play "what ifs" what if she had man boobs 1 testicle, 1 ovary an inverted noodle and a uteris all at once.
well what is she? I don't know in some cases of mutation (wich isn't too harsh, these people arent exactly NORMAL but I wouldnt be so rude as to call them freaks and brush them off) there has to be some scientific method to define gender. If they feel a certain way and their birth certificate says they are a certian way and they are attracted to the opposite of what they think they are I guess we could call it all good. If not who knows.
yes were does it start. don't discount animal marriage or even multiple wifes and incest. If these people "feel" the way they do, by "gay marriage" attitude we have to apease them or we are violating their civil rights.
I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, did 'God' tell you? The only reason I see from most people who fight this is some religous beliefs. All the other points I've seen are false and moot, just as religion is moot.... or do you want to move back to a society where you have to be a certain religion? ... noone expects the Spanish Inqustion.
I don't think we live in a black and white, discrete world. Would be kind of boreing if we did IMHO.
my faith is none of your business! I didn't bring up God or the fact that homos are an abomination before him.
You still havn't even tried to counter any of my points. They do not defy logic and are really simple.
Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity. Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.
-
Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity. Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.
I just think your liveing in a defined world, when things are much more complex.
there has to be some scientific method to define gender.
I guess you agree then there is not a tried and true way to define gender?
What does gay even mean if you can't define the sexes?
Mutations are a part of evolution. Maybe one day we'll evolve like the seahorse and the 'Male' will get pregnant.
it's not so simple to me ..... but that's my POV
-
Originally posted by Manedew
I just think your liveing in a defined world, when things are much more complex.
I guess you agree then there is not a tried and true way to define gender?
What does gay even mean if you can't define the sexes?
Mutations are a part of evolution. Maybe one day we'll evolve like the seahorse and the 'Male' will get pregnant.
it's not so simple to me ..... but that's my POV
I don't disagree with you about the species evolving but I do not beleive being a homo is some sort of "evolved" man while the rest of us chasing the girls are just dragging our knuckles.
but you are getting ahead of yourself. The sexes are clearly defined. Those that dont fit either of them are anomolies or defined differently. How they equate to partnership and marriage I DONT KNOW that's a whole nother topic that i wont even get into.
I disagree with you synopsis that there's male and female and many levels of variations there of inbetween.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't disagree with you about the species evolving but I do not beleive being a homo is some sort of "evolved" man while the rest of us chasing the girls are just dragging our knuckles.
I never said that...
Evolution is about what works best.... mutations allow for the options. Some are bad options.... others work and become the norm, because they survive, and reproduce better.
I really don't think you understand me, or evolution ... you countuinely repeat yourself IMHO and defeat your own reasoning in the end
point and case
The sexes are clearly defined. Those that dont fit either of them are anomolies or defined differently. How they equate to partnership and marriage I DONT KNOW that's a whole nother topic that i wont even get into.
I honestly don't beleive people that are gay can help it and they very well may be born that way.
So what exactly do you think a gay person is?
You say you don't want to get into the topic ... this is the topic if you want to get scientific about it.
it doesn't count because it's 'just in your head'?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nature has it in the cards for us humans to reproduce sexually. To me when a couple wants to conceive a child any other way it is "un-natural" (not to say that's a bad thing cause it's not) but it doesnt go along with the natural order of things.
I'm sure nature would evolve and survive if every man on earth turned into elton John but compared to humans of today it would be unatural.
What if homosexuality was a way to increase the chances of a family group procreating successfully?
-
Originally posted by Manedew
So what exactly do you think a gay person is?
You say you don't want to get into the topic ... this is the topic if you want to get scientific about it.
it doesn't count because it's 'just in your head'?
Now you are reaching here. You want to go into what exactly is a gender and some thing about not having ANY genders?
Male and Female are clearly defined in human biology.
anyone who doesnt fit male or female gender by birth defect is a seperate topic all together.
A gay person, to my knowledge goes for the same sex.
I am failing to see your point in any of this. I have made my case for my opinions and all you want to do is bring up what ifs and extremly grey generalizations. I still have the same contention from when I started:
You still havn't even tried to counter any of my points. They do not defy logic and are really simple.
Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity. Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate.
What if homosexuality was a way to increase the chances of a family group procreating successfully?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What if homosexuality was a way to increase the chances of a family group procreating successfully?
I didn't answer the question the first time because it was a dumb what if question that is not relevent to the current topic. BUT, I'll bite now just to keep you from yappin. Homosexuality is NOT a way to increase the chances ofa family group procreating successfully. That is my answer.
-
Ok, then do y'all agree that restricting sterile couples from getting married is ok? Since the conversation has steered to marriage having some special relationship with reproduction. Still no response on the 'black only' restrooms.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, then do y'all agree that restricting sterile couples from getting married is ok? Since the conversation has steered to marriage having some special relationship with reproduction. Still no response on the 'black only' restrooms.
no one here would agree on the steril couples. The entire tangent has very little to do with the marriage issue but centers around my comments that "being gay goes against nature" Manadew they proceded to tell me that homos are the new evolved man and that trans gender people make up a good portion of the population AND that there really is no genders at all.
PS I answered your question on page 2 ;)
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you make a good point (even about the analogy :D )
The difference as I see it is this. Black white brown asian (any color) right now enjoy the SAME rights and treatment as any other color (except for whites they enjoy less rights than minorities in some cases but that is a whole nother thread topic)
where was I...oh yea. Creating gay marriage in your analogy would be like creating "black marriage" we don't write laws for special minorities we write them for everyone. Now you could, as Nash said, say this is a matter of symantics but it is wholey imporating to nearly 70% of the population. This is not another Majority is wrong the world is actual round debates this is one of deep rotted emotions and yes religion too (Disclaimor: I am trying to make my case by leaving religion out of this as not everyone is religious)
When the civil rights movements claimed victory we did not create special rights just for minorities and I don't think we should creat especial rights just for Gays now. No one is conforming Gays to have seperate but equal rights, they enjoy the same rights as eveyone else. Like I said before, if they want special rights than it should apply to everyone.
-
Gunslinger, it's a question of knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know.
You said, "Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate.", what you should have said is "Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate, that I know of.".
Let's include the next sentance.
"Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity."
What about ants and bees? The vast majority of the populations don't reproduce. Is one to say that they are unsuccessful species or are the asexual members and important part of what makes them successful.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
As Adams himself put it: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Sea...I hope you don't mind if I jump in, but your quote attributed to John Adams (not documented by Adams himself, but rather a third party) got me to thinking. You are assuming that it is your flavor of Christianity that sets the tone for what is "moral and religious". I doubt your Christianity is what Adams had in mind considering he was a Deist and thought that human reason was supreme over faith (if you doubt that you should read the Adams letters...specifically those to Jefferson...they are very revealing).
And as long as we are looking at Christianity and it's history with same-sex marriage...can you tell me who Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus were? It seems that the Catholic Church had been performing same-sex marriages up until the 18th Century and documented as far back as the 10th Century. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual. Take a look at the research done by Yale history professor John Boswell to see more examples.
Of course you can claim that Catholics or the Christians who performed those ceremonies were not "true Christians". But that opens up a whole new can of worms ultimately leading back to the question of: what makes you think your brand of morality or Christianity is the "right" one and better than anyone elses? In the end it is all down to interpretation of God's will (which, if He exists, I would say is probably far beyond any human's comprehension anyway...and to think otherwise is hubris)
Originally posted by Seagoon
In fact, the idea that our laws would directly contravene those of God or "natural laws" was considered repugnant for hundreds of years.
I think we have quite a few laws that contravene God...and personally, I am glad of it. It is against the law to offer up your child as a burnt offering regardless who tells you to do it (and the "God told me" defense doesn't hold up in court to well...even when the jury is made of Christians). It is against the law to pander your daughters for sex even if it is to protect some angels.
But I have to ask you, Nuke and the rest...why do you care if two fairies marry? Allowing same-sex marriage would not effect me at all...and I assume it wouldn't effect you either (unless someone is coming out of the closet). What I do see is that same sex partners do not receive the same benefits offered to hetero partners. They are not allowed to marry the person they love. They cannot then receive the government benefits and protections offered to hetero married couples (things like social security, estate probate rights, child custody, etc). They frequently cannot receive the same company benefits offered to hetero married couples (health benefits and even car insurance reductions).
So if you feel this is a sin...fine. Don't engage in it. But why do you want to legislate that choice for someone else...especially since God supposedly give us all a choice to sin. And even more so, when that sin does not immediately impact you or your life.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gunslinger, it's a question of knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know.
You said, "Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate.", what you should have said is "Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate, that I know of.".
Let's include the next sentance.
"Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity."
What about ants and bees? The vast majority of the populations don't reproduce. Is one to say that they are unsuccessful species or are the asexual members and important part of what makes them successful.
when's the last time you saw ants or bees get married or try the act of reproduction because it felt good. Stay on course here thrawn.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
And as long as we are looking at Christianity and it's history with same-sex marriage...can you tell me who Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus were? It seems that the Catholic Church had been performing same-sex marriages up until the 18th Century and documented as far back as the 10th Century. Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual. Take a look at the research done by Yale history professor John Boswell to see more examples.
crow I hope you don't mind if I jump in here but how can you compare 10th and 19th catholics to modern day christians.
I think we have quite a few laws that contravene God...and personally, I am glad of it. It is against the law to offer up your child as a burnt offering regardless who tells you to do it (and the "God told me" defense doesn't hold up in court to well...even when the jury is made of Christians). It is against the law to pander your daughters for sex even if it is to protect some angels.
now you are brining up old testiment stuff. Completly irrelevent
But I have to ask you, Nuke and the rest...why do you care if two fairies marry?
it's not them marrying it's them redefining a common institution to fit their special needs.
Allowing same-sex marriage would not effect me at all...and I assume it wouldn't effect you either (unless someone is coming out of the closet).
there has allready been a case were a church is sued for discrimintory practices for declining a same sex marriage. The plantif is trying to get their tax exempt status revoked. So yes it does effect me if they come to my church and tell me what I can and can not do.
What I do see is that same sex partners do not receive the same benefits offered to hetero partners. They are not allowed to marry the person they love. They cannot then receive the government benefits and protections offered to hetero married couples (things like social security, estate probate rights, child custody, etc). They frequently cannot receive the same company benefits offered to hetero married couples (health benefits and even car insurance reductions).
they have the EXACT same marital rights as anyone else. No one is discriminated against. Read page two of this thread.
So if you feel this is a sin...fine. Don't engage in it. But why do you want to legislate that choice for someone else...especially since God supposedly give us all a choice to sin. And even more so, when that sin does not immediately impact you or your life.
its not that I am judging them right or wrong I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes. When they come out in public and want to stand as man and man and get "married" it is extremly offensive to me. It demeans the act of marriage for everyone. It also opens the door to many other forms of "marriage" to include in the rewriting of the definition.
Furthermore as i've said in this thread I think it is discriminatory to pass special laws just to apease this group. Gays don't want equal rights (they allready have those) they want special rights.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
What I do see is that same sex partners do not receive the same benefits offered to hetero partners. They are not allowed to marry the person they love.
They are not allowed to have those benifits because it's against the law, pretty simple. They are not allowed to marry the one they love because it's against the law to marry a same-sex partner, and society makes the laws. It's also against the law for a brother to marry a sister.
Are you saying that a son should also be able to marry his mother if they so desire? What about polygomy ( learned to spell itfinnaly) ? Do you think that a man should be able to marry an underaged boy if they both agreed and loved each other? How would that effect you?
Gay marriage is no different than any of those examples. Society has decided that it is not moraly acceptable to marry a same sex partner, just as society has decided not to allow the other examples, and I agree.
Gay people have the EXACT same rights as hetero people, to the letter. Nobody has been able to argue otherwise because they can't. So, no gay is being descriminated against in any way.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Manedew,
I just go back on the basics of survival I guess. Homosexuals have no place in a species trying to survive and propagate. I veiw it as a vanity (anomaly) that shows up when humans are at their peak and don't have to worry about being fed or reproducing.
I don't think I'm assuming much in the above statement but hey that's just me.
How can you be so sure that homosexuals have no place in a species trying to survive and propagate? Sure, their homosexuality guarantees their own personal lack of propagation, but what of the species as a whole?
Socrates, for example was a bit of a homosexual, and yet he had a great influence on the philosphy and thought of the human species. Julius Caesar had a great influence on human development in the culture, politics and borders department, as did Alexander the Great. And IMO as a species we're a lot better off for having had Hans Christian Andersen, Leonardo Da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Truman Capote, Emily Dickinson, Michaelangelo, David Hockney and Tennessee Williams around to name but a few.
So we can't just dismiss people who don't reproduce as having nothing to offer society or the species: after all even Jesus never reproduced, according to the bible. Does that lessen his impact in your view?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
when's the last time you saw ants or bees get married or try the act of reproduction because it felt good. Stay on course here thrawn.
No, you stay on the course. You gave an arguement about why you thought homosexuality was unnatural, I am arguing that point.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
How can you be so sure that homosexuals have no place in a species trying to survive and propagate? Sure, their homosexuality guarantees their own personal lack of propagation, but what of the species as a whole?
Socrates, for example was a bit of a homosexual, and yet he had a great influence on the philosphy and thought of the human species. Julius Caesar had a great influence on human development in the culture, politics and borders department, as did Alexander the Great. And IMO as a species we're a lot better off for having had Hans Christian Andersen, Leonardo Da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Truman Capote, Emily Dickinson, Michaelangelo, David Hockney and Tennessee Williams around to name but a few.
So we can't just dismiss people who don't reproduce as having nothing to offer society or the species: after all even Jesus never reproduced, according to the bible. Does that lessen his impact in your view?
not to be a jerk but go back and read everything in this thread that lead me saying those statements.
The orriginal context was that homsexuality was against nature and/or unatural.
The above examples you give prove my point. In those times humanity as a species was thriving NOT barely on the edge of survival. If it were on the latter homosexuals would not be usfull for procreation of the species itself.
Im not saying Gayness is a bad thing I am saying it is un-natural. Men flying through the air is unatural. We don't have wings, if the ones we built to fly us fail we fall to the ground to our deaths
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No, you stay on the course. You gave an arguement about why you thought homosexuality was unnatural, I am arguing that point.
ants and bees are insects. They have very little in common with humans.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
crow I hope you don't mind if I jump in here but how can you compare 10th and 19th catholics to modern day christians.
You mean the Bible is open to interpretation and which ever way the social wind is blowing at the time becomes God's Truth? Where is absolute truth?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
now you are brining up old testiment stuff. Completly irrelevent
[/B]
Glad to hear you say that...since Old Testiment is completely irrelevent we can now throw out any argument you have to removing 10 Commandments from government property.
But if you want New Testiment...how about Matt 15 and Mark 7. Of course it seems Jesus would disagree with you that Mosaic Law is completely irrelevent.
But should we have a law forcing everyone to wash their hands before they eat and kill disrespectful children?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
it's not them marrying it's them redefining a common institution to fit their special needs.
[/B]
It is a special need to be able to marry the person you love?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
there has allready been a case were a church is sued for discrimintory practices for declining a same sex marriage. The plantif is trying to get their tax exempt status revoked. So yes it does effect me if they come to my church and tell me what I can and can not do.
[/B]
People can sue for just about anything...let me know when there is a ruling.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
they have the EXACT same marital rights as anyone else. No one is discriminated against. Read page two of this thread.
[/B]
Do they have the right to marry the person they love?
Originally posted by Gunslinger
When they come out in public and want to stand as man and man and get "married" it is extremly offensive to me. It demeans the act of marriage for everyone. It also opens the door to many other forms of "marriage" to include in the rewriting of the definition.
[/B]
Sounds like a buch of hand wringing to me. There are many things in this world that are offensive. Sorry to tell you but but the world isn't a pure homogenious WASP utopia...and never should be.
Originally posted by NUKE
Are you saying that a son should also be able to marry his mother if they so desire? What about polygomy ( learned to spell itfinnaly) ? Do you think that a man should be able to marry an underaged boy if they both agreed and loved each other? How would that effect you?
I think there are other reasons behind incest...genetics. And as far as minors go...they cannot make an informed decision.
Originally posted by NUKE
Society has decided that it is not moraly acceptable to marry a same sex partner, just as society has decided not to allow the other examples, and I agree.
Society used to find it morally unacceptable for mixed race marriages too. Are you saying that society should stay stagnant?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I think there are other reasons behind insest...genetics. And as far as minors go...they cannot make an informed decision.
Society used to find it morally unacceptable for mixed race marriages too. Are you saying that society should stay stagnant?
Why do you care about insest or genetics, if it's really what they want to do and they are in love? And who cares if minors can't make an informed decision, it shouldn't be against the law to be in love and marry.
I never once said that I feel society should remain stagnant. Right now, it is against the law for homos to marry and that's the way it is and should be. I never want it to be legal for them to marry.
The funny thing is that people claim that homos are being descrimitated against somehow, when they are not. They have the exact same rights as heteros do. No more, no less.
-
Glad to hear you say that...since Old Testiment is completely irrelevent we can now throw out any argument you have to removing 10 Commandments from government property.
now you are jumping to conclusions. The old testiment is not irelevent nore are the ten commandments. When Jesus died for our sins christions gained a new covenent with god. The laws and moral lessons of the old testiment are still valid but the ceremonial aspects of it (not eating fish certain days, cripples cant go before the alter of god ect) are no longer valid.
nuff on that.
It is a special need to be able to marry the person you love?
Do they have the right to marry the person they love?
yes and yes. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They have the right to that just like everyone else. Just because they are Gay does not mean they can go a redfine laws to suit their lifestyle. Should a pedifle have the right to be one just because they were born that way?
Sounds like a buch of hand wringing to me. There are many things in this world that are offensive. Sorry to tell you but but the world isn't a pure homogenious WASP utopia...and never should be.
nore is it a multicultural deversified rainbow flag waving gay day parade. There are many things in life that people should be respectfull of that are important to others. It seems as of late it's the Waspy types that have to make concessions to everyone else.(that's another topic in of itself)
So 70% of a democratic society do not want to redefine Marriage to fill the special needs of a minority group. They are ALL wrong. What if all of them said the world is round instead of flat???? the argument can be made both ways it would seem.
Still none of you that are for redefining society norms can tell me what is wrong with a law pertaining to "civil unions"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ants and bees are insects. They have very little in common with humans.
You implied that it is "unnatural" for a member of a species not to have an imperative to procreate. I have shown you where in nature not only does it occur but is part of the survival system for a species.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You implied that it is "unnatural" for a member of a species not to have an imperative to procreate. I have shown you where in nature not only does it occur but is part of the survival system for a species.
well what about humans, primates, dogs, cats, and pretty much the rest of the mammle world?
I have now showed you in nature were it is un-natural and counter productive to procreation and survival.
bees and ants have no bearing on the subject nor are they applicable to the current conversation.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
not to be a jerk but go back and read everything in this thread that lead me saying those statements.
The orriginal context was that homsexuality was against nature and/or unatural.
The above examples you give prove my point. In those times humanity as a species was thriving NOT barely on the edge of survival. If it were on the latter homosexuals would not be usfull for procreation of the species itself.
Im not saying Gayness is a bad thing I am saying it is un-natural. Men flying through the air is unatural. We don't have wings, if the ones we built to fly us fail we fall to the ground to our deaths
Well in that case to make your point, you'll have to define a few of those rather ambiguous terms.
For example: what is natural? What is nature? What is against nature?
I'm a bit of a literalist, so I'd basically define anything that happens in nature as being natural. So in my book, things that are against nature by definition can't happen. So flying is natural, and gayness is natural - after all they both happen in nature (yes, even aeroplanes are natural). Indeed anything that actually happens no matter how odd it may seem is by definition not against nature. My definition is a bit all-encompassing to be of much use to you, but I find it avoids a lot of hypocrisy, confusion and subjective judgement on the whole natural/unnatural dichotomy.
Also once we've got past the 3 easy questions above, you should probably go into a little more detail to clarify your stance further:
What other "unnatural" traits or things that are "against nature" are not useful for the species? The blind? Deaf people? Asthma? Diabetes? Six fingers? Extra nipples? Autism? Albinos? Pygmies? Schizophrenia? A short temper? Tall people or Short people? Long sighted? Short sighted? Dyslexia?Where do you draw the line?
Should you subscribe to gayness being a genetic thing, given that we're all ultimately African (according to the accepted scientific theories so far) — are white people more or less natural than gay people? How about even smaller groups - like people with blue eyes? And seeing as you feel left-footers are against nature, what are your views on left-handers?
If on the other hand, you prefer to look at homosexuality as being down to just a sexual preference, to make things clearer, you'd best include some of the other sexual preferences and point out which are natural and helpful for the species and which aren't: is liking blondes good or bad for the species? Is it natural?
In fact, it's probably best if you lay out in as precise detail as is possible in the new O club what exactly is "normal" or "natural" in human sexuality. Because we all have our likes and dislikes, so I'd submit that there is no such thing as normal or natural when you get right down to the details — I think it was Masters & Johnson that came up with the thought-provoking statistic that around 80% of what people considered perversion was perfectly normal human sexual behaviour.
You'll also have to pinpoint at what point humanity was on the edge of survival - because I'm entirely unclear as to when this time may have been. Do then please point to the research showing that there were no homosexuals during that period of humanity balancing on the edge. Otherwise it would seem that this is merely speculation on your part about the sexual behaviour of the human species at your posited "edge of survival" time.
And unless you can provide a time, and some convincing evidence pointing to a distinct lack of homosexuality at that time, the examples I posted prove nothing more than that an individual can be useful to the species without having to reproduce or be heterosexual.
-
Sorry -dead-
I don't contemplate or put that much thaught into gayness.
By your definition if it happens it's natural. That's not the way I see it. Nature has an order to it, a natural cycle if you will, if it happens it's natural doesnt allways fit into the cycle of life as we know it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sorry -dead-
I don't contemplate or put that much thaught into gayness.
Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. But it does beg the question: why then are you arguing so vehemently about what you think about it?By your definition if it happens it's natural. That's not the way I see it. Nature has an order to it, a natural cycle if you will, if it happens it's natural doesnt allways fit into the cycle of life as we know it.
Still no idea what you mean — nature to me is everything in the universe/multiverse. Thus it has no cycle or order that can exclude things that exist. So indulge me, and start at the beginning: define nature.
What is nature?
What is natural?
What is unnatural or against nature?
And how can things that are against nature exist in nature?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. But it does beg the question: why then are you arguing so vehemently about what you think about it?
quite simply my ideas about gay marriage were logical and unarguable thus ignored completly to those in favor of. I made a few comments about what I think of homosexuality and that is were the discussion has swung to.
-
GunS
what a simple black and white world you live in
... no sorry ... things aren't that simple, it's a fact of sicence
You refuse to even argue points, saying it's to complex, and you don't want to think about it?
that's kind of the point here....why are you here if you don't want to think about it?
the more you know-you realize how little you know.
and you don't want to think about it?
sorry you points are a joke to me after you say that ... but just my POV
____________________
BTW you could define natural as biological..... if you put some thought into it :rolleyes:
______________________
sorry if i'm dripping with sarcasim .. but you simply say i don't want to think about it I WISH things were simple.
that's Bull; not only that, you think I say things that I don't even imply ... you just don't want to think about evolution; so it's a bit hard for you to understand me.
the only knuckle draggers I see are tho's who refuse to think.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
quite simply my ideas about gay marriage were logical and unarguable thus ignored completly to those in favor of. I made a few comments about what I think of homosexuality and that is were the discussion has swung to.
So am I to take it that whilst you feel being gay is logically and unarguably unnatural, you can't actually logically or unarguably define what you mean by natural or unnatural.
That's certainly unarguable, mostly by virtue of the complete lack of any actual argument as such, but I think you might get into trouble over the logical claim. ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So am I to take it that whilst you feel being gay is logically and unarguably unnatural, you can't actually logically or unarguably define what you mean by natural or unnatural.
That's certainly unarguable, mostly by virtue of the complete lack of any actual argument as such, but I think you might get into trouble over the logical claim. ;)
HUMANS naturally have to to procreate to survive. Without going into too many off the wall what ifs with out gender to opposite gender procreation the species would die.
Thus homosexuality is un natural. It goes against natures cylce of life and survival of the HUMAN species.
You can talk about monkeys and bees/ants all you want but what we are talking about here is HUMANS and nothing else.
-
with out gender to opposite gender procreation the species would die.
You repeatdly show you just don't understand evolution
but then i guess we wouldn't be 'human' anymore..... but you might want to make clear what your saying .... if your sayign that.
If hermaphodites were succefully and the rest of us died off... or some such trait... point is .. THAT IS EVOLUTION
If haveing two fingers on each hand became the succesufull trait .. that would happen!
understand yet?
-
Originally posted by Manedew
You repeatdly show you just don't understand evolution
but then i guess we wouldn't be 'human' anymore..... but you might want to make clear what your saying .... if your sayign that.
If hermaphodites were succefully and the rest of us died off... or some such trait... point is .. THAT IS EVOLUTION
If haveing two fingers on each hand became the succesufull trait .. that would happen!
understand yet?
WE (I am assumeing you and I) are both HUMAN. We both have a GENDER. I don't know about you but I am a MALE CLEARLY DEFINED. It's that simple. Humans AS A WHOLE will not have the ability for Asexual reproduction this year, next year, and I would even gather to say the next ten years, more than likely 10,000 years.
In addition show me were HUMANS in the past AS A WHOLE (I keep saying this because we are talking about a SPECIES and not a few hermaphodites) could reproduce Asexually?????????
With that said we are talking in the present. Not the past and not the distant future 10 milinia away.
Since we ARE talking about gay humans to begin with and that is the topic since animals and non-humans can't get married one would surmise that when I referr to a species your OWN would be the asssumed subject.
This is what I'm referring to.....I DO GET IT..... I think you are trying to paint homosexuals as some kind of evolved man and I disagree
-
This is what I'm referring to.....I DO GET IT..... I think you are trying to paint homosexuals as some kind of evolved man and I disagree
and you show yet agin you just don't understand.....
it's about what works best ... evolution is natural
and mutations exsist... you stated earlier that you thought gay's were born that way- which implies they are a mutation.....
what don't you understand....
evolution dosen't always mean smarter or better... just better adapted
understand yet?
mutation will happen regaurdless .... it's natrual....
what lives and works best is what becomes the average for the species into the future
mutations mean we evolve.. otherwise we'd stagnate
-
Originally posted by Manedew
and you show yet agin you just don't understand.....
it's about what works best ... evolution is natural
so are you saying homosexuality is they way of evolution or not?
evolution dosen't always mean smarter or better... just better adapted
understand yet?
no I don't. I do not understand why evolution goes along with the current discussion. We havnt evolved yet and live in the now. We have to decide for the now. Humans have been on this planet for a LONG time and we still seem to be reproducing the same way. We may evolve a few hundred thousand years from now but we arent there yet.
The current topic is applicable to the current methods of reproduction.....get it?
-
so are you saying homosexuality is they way of evolution or not?
No it's mutation... it is one possible path of millions or billions or infinity
You say a homosexual is likely born that way
If a homosexual person is born that way they are diffrant...a mutation
just like a manic deprsseive person is diffrant, a mutation
or ADD
or a schizo
etc, etc
they are mutations ... some might even be advantages and survive better, who says ADD is all bad?
your proably correct in saying that a homosexaul won't be the human that survives and procreates..... but nature doens't know that
it's has to shoot it's scatter gun of mutation .. and what works ... lives.
get it?
and the main point is .. the average person doesn't exsist .. it's a stat.....
so how do you define it ....by your z score?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
HUMANS naturally have to to procreate to survive.
Sloppy thinking there — oxygen, water, sleep, food, shelter. That's all humans need to survive. Procreation is entirely optional.
Without going into too many off the wall what ifs with out gender to opposite gender procreation the species would die.
Yes but here's the rub: Only some are required to procreate for the species to survive — not all of us. In fact only a few males are necessary: females are more important, but I'm guessing that you'll have much less issues with female homosexuals than with male ones, despite the rather larger impact of lesbianism in the whole species survival issue.
Thus homosexuality is un natural. It goes against natures cylce of life and survival of the HUMAN species.
And yet here we sit in nature, with all these naturally-occurring homosexuals all over the shop. So who's got it wrong here? You or reality? And if nature abhors homosexuality so much, why doesn't it go the same way as it does with vacuums? If heterosexuality is essential for survival, how have all these homosexuals survived? If they confer no evolutionary advantage why haven't they gone the way of the tail or the appendix?
This is really the crux of the problem in your logic —these two points are where it all falls down:
Not every member of a species has to procreate in order for the species to survive.
And procreation is not the only factor governing the survival of a species.
There are many others in play. A speculative example — homosexuality is often linked to creative stuff, so perhaps homosexuals had a part to play in the development of language and written language in particular, which has an immense importance in the survival and thriving of our species.
I have no idea if that's true or not — but it serves to illustrate that procreation alone is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of survival: there are other ways to contribute to the survival of the species, and homosexuals may well have contributed to it and may still be contributing to it.
I think life, evolution and genetics is rather more complicated than we think. In fact I suspect it's more complicated than we can think — the rules may well be simple, but the results are too complex to fathom. Which is why I use the all-encompassing definition of what is natural. Of course you still haven't defined what you think nature is, or what natural is, so I'm still working on my version.
Yeast procreates until it suffocates in its own waste and the whole colony kills itself, humans are currently in danger of doing pretty much the same. Procreation does not necessarily mean survival. In fact, adaptation is generally the defining factor in survival. Procreation is only one strategy used to adapt.
So all in all dismissing homosexuality as unnatural and contrary to nature based solely on the fact that homosexuals can't procreate seems a little premature. It also rather hinges on the view that a species dying out is unnatural, but the evidence points to the opposite being the case.
You can talk about monkeys and bees/ants all you want but what we are talking about here is HUMANS and nothing else.
Humans are just jumped up monkeys anyway (all apes are), indeed our closest relative is the foully unnatural (by your standards) Bonobo who will pretty much do anything to anything at every opportunity. They're a very peaceful and content lot, with no wars and not much fighting — disputes are settled through sex. And we keep on insisting we're the clever ones...
I digress. I would also like to know what your feelings on childless heterosexual couples are, though: should they be allowed to marry? Even if they are so "unnatural" that they are not going to procreate? Are those who cannot procreate also unnatural? Should all couples who want to marry be forced take a fertility test and sign a "We promise to procreate" affadavit? It's a logical step based on the premise of "couple X is unnatural because they can't/won't procreate, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry".
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I never once said that I feel society should remain stagnant. Right now, it is against the law for homos to marry and that's the way it is and should be. I never want it to be legal for them to marry.
[/B]
So you like things the way they are and you never want them to change? And the definition of stagnant is...?
Originally posted by NUKE
The funny thing is that people claim that homos are being descrimitated against somehow, when they are not. They have the exact same rights as heteros do. No more, no less.
[/B]
Then I guess you would say that blacks had the exact same rights as whites prior to the civil rights movement? They had the right to go to public school just like white kids (just not the same school). Black men had the right to marry a woman if they wanted to (just not a white woman).
Originally posted by Gunslinger
now you are jumping to conclusions. The old testiment is not irelevent nore are the ten commandments.
I am? I thought you said it was irrelavent...let me look...yeah, you said it is irrelavent.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
When Jesus died for our sins christions gained a new covenent with god. The laws and moral lessons of the old testiment are still valid but the ceremonial aspects of it (not eating fish certain days, cripples cant go before the alter of god ect) are no longer valid.
So just sweep Matt 15 and Mark 7 away...glad you know which parts of the Bible to believe and which to dismiss.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Still none of you that are for redefining society norms can tell me what is wrong with a law pertaining to "civil unions"
Nothing is wrong with it...where is it? Have you written your Congressman or Senator? The reason the gays are after marriage is because civil unions are not Federally recognized nor are they recognized in every state. So again, they want the same rights granted to married couples. They want the right to survivors benefits should one partner die. They want the right to claim property ownership should one partner die without a will. They want to ensure that any child they are raising is not sent to foster care if the bio mom/dad or legal adoption mom/dad dies. They want to get lower car insurance rates, LOL.
So write your state and Federal legislators...tell em to make the homos and lesbos shut-up...give em civil unions. Then you can be happy in the symantics of the word "marriage" remaining between a man and a woman.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Sloppy thinking there — oxygen, water, sleep, food, shelter. That's all humans need to survive. Procreation is entirely optional.
I am going to ignore every thing else you typed and concentrate on this. Hey at least I'm honest about it.
So if humans don't reproduce how do they survive as a species again?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
So you like things the way they are and you never want them to change? And the definition of stagnant is...?
Then I guess you would say that blacks had the exact same rights as whites prior to the civil rights movement? They had the right to go to public school just like white kids (just not the same school). Black men had the right to marry a woman if they wanted to (just not a white woman).
I am? I thought you said it was irrelavent...let me look...yeah, you said it is irrelavent.
So just sweep Matt 15 and Mark 7 away...glad you know which parts of the Bible to believe and which to dismiss.
Nothing is wrong with it...where is it? Have you written your Congressman or Senator? The reason the gays are after marriage is because civil unions are not Federally recognized nor are they recognized in every state. So again, they want the same rights granted to married couples. They want the right to survivors benefits should one partner die. They want the right to claim property ownership should one partner die without a will. They want to ensure that any child they are raising is not sent to foster care if the bio mom/dad or legal adoption mom/dad dies. They want to get lower car insurance rates, LOL.
So write your state and Federal legislators...tell em to make the homos and lesbos shut-up...give em civil unions. Then you can be happy in the symantics of the word "marriage" remaining between a man and a woman.
Crow show me ONE right that a homosexual does not have that a strait person does??????????
I never said the old testiment was irrelevent I said this was:
I think we have quite a few laws that contravene God...and personally, I am glad of it. It is against the law to offer up your child as a burnt offering regardless who tells you to do it (and the "God told me" defense doesn't hold up in court to well...even when the jury is made of Christians). It is against the law to pander your daughters for sex even if it is to protect some angels.
I even got more specific about WHY when you asked.
I will write who I want when I want. I think there are far more pressing issues in society today than to pressure my congressmen about civil unions. I said I wasn't against them not that I'd advocate for them.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
But I have to ask you, Nuke and the rest...why do you care if two fairies marry? Allowing same-sex marriage would not effect me at all...and I assume it wouldn't effect you either (unless someone is coming out of the closet).
Well Crow it is my assertion that you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. Those so passionately against gays having the same rights as the heteroes might feel compelled to change their orientation and that is what scares them. You know they believe being gay is a choice. So if the choice is legalized then........:)
And I have a religious question as the whole Gays are against nature statement is religious in scope.
Adam and Eve had kids. Those kids must have done the dead to expand the population. Incest would have been neccessary. So we are all the product of incest?
Now how does this sit with all who believe the bible is the law?
Dont be to contradictory in your answer:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I am going to ignore every thing else you typed and concentrate on this. Hey at least I'm honest about it.
So if humans don't reproduce how do they survive as a species again?
Humans as a species (you might want to think of this as Homo Sapiens to avoid confusion) need some humans to reproduce to survive. Humans as individuals do not need to reproduce to survive. That's the sloppy thinking.
And this small difference is where your argument fails: because not every human needs to reproduce to have the species survive.
I don't blame you for ignoring the rest of my post. I'd have given up too, if I was you: I don't see much of answer that maintains your position but doesn't go along the lines of "just because" or reek of hipocrisy either. Better to keep quiet on that lot.
I'd still like to know what your feelings on childless heterosexual couples are, though: should they be allowed to marry? Even if they are so "unnatural" that they are not going to procreate? Are those who cannot procreate also unnatural? Should all couples who want to marry be forced take a fertility test and sign a "We promise to procreate" affadavit? It's a logical step based on the premise of "couple X is unnatural because they can't/won't procreate, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry".
But I'm sure you'll ignore that bit again.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Humans as a species (you might want to think of this as Homo Sapiens to avoid confusion) need some humans to reproduce to survive. Humans as individuals do not need to reproduce to survive. That's the sloppy thinking.
And this small difference is where your argument fails: because not every human needs to reproduce to have the species survive.
so it's settled then. More often then not I was referring to Humans as a species.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so it's settled then. More often then not I was referring to Humans as a species.
What's settled? You haven't even stated your case clearly yet.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well Crow it is my assertion that you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. Those so passionately against gays having the same rights as the heteroes might feel compelled to change their orientation and that is what scares them. You know they believe being gay is a choice. So if the choice is legalized then........:)
And I have a religious question as the whole Gays are against nature statement is religious in scope.
Adam and Eve had kids. Those kids must have done the dead to expand the population. Incest would have been neccessary. So we are all the product of incest?
Now how does this sit with all who believe the bible is the law?
Dont be to contradictory in your answer:)
In the begining God didnt say that incest was wrong. In fact if he had, the human species would not have survived since there was only one man and one woman to begin with. It wasnt until later that incest was declared taboo. (I dont have my electronic Bible loaded on this comp so I cant do the searches required to find this info, Seagoon can probably help me out here). Just going from memory I believe it is the book of Leviticus that first tells us what is right and wrong when it comes to sexual relations with others.
I believe that marriage is an institution, defined by God, between a Man, a Woman and God.
-
Humans as a species (you might want to think of this as Homo Sapiens to avoid confusion) need some humans to reproduce to survive. Humans as individuals do not need to reproduce to survive.
When God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden he commanded them to go forth and reproduce and fill the earth. It's not possible to fulfill that commandment if you practice homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
What's settled? You haven't even stated your case clearly yet.
re-read page two and three. You havnt even come close to disproving it. You havnt even read my posts correctly. You prove that every time you post.
with out completly picking my words apart and miss quoting me you cannot tell me how a human species would survive if they can't procreat.....notice the words HUMAN and SPECIES.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well Crow it is my assertion that you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. Those so passionately against gays having the same rights as the heteroes might feel compelled to change their orientation and that is what scares them. You know they believe being gay is a choice. So if the choice is legalized then........:)
And I have a religious question as the whole Gays are against nature statement is religious in scope.
Adam and Eve had kids. Those kids must have done the dead to expand the population. Incest would have been neccessary. So we are all the product of incest?
Now how does this sit with all who believe the bible is the law?
Dont be to contradictory in your answer:)
I'm still waiting for ANYONE on this board to point out ONE right just ONE right that a strait person has that is denied to a gay person.
Silat I've made the nature argument (that really has nothing to do with marriage but somone wanted to argue it) and it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is an ideal created by man, man did not create nature.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm still waiting for ANYONE on this board to point out ONE right just ONE right that a strait person has that is denied to a gay person.
Ok, I'll bite. They have the right to get married to their true love/soul mate/fiance.
That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?
If you're arguing that giving homosexuals the right to marry each other is a 'special right', you're mistaken. Because, by definition, that would give heterosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex as well, though I imagine you'd have to be pretty 'special' indeed to do that.
End result, everyone has the same rights.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm still waiting for ANYONE on this board to point out ONE right just ONE right that a strait person has that is denied to a gay person.
Silat I've made the nature argument (that really has nothing to do with marriage but somone wanted to argue it) and it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is an ideal created by man, man did not create nature.
The argument that being gay is "Unnatural" is a religious argument. Otherwise you would quote valid scientific data to prove the point.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, I'll bite. They have the right to get married to their true love/soul mate/fiance.
That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?
If you're arguing that giving homosexuals the right to marry each other is a 'special right', you're mistaken. Because, by definition, that would give heterosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex as well, though I imagine you'd have to be pretty 'special' indeed to do that.
End result, everyone has the same rights.
and by your argument gays have the right to marry their "true love/soul mate/fiance" just like strait people do. They don't have the right to marry their " true love/soul mate/fiance" if they are of the same sex JUST LIKE STRAIT PEOPLE!
There is no civil rights being denied here.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
When God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden he commanded them to go forth and reproduce and fill the earth. It's not possible to fulfill that commandment if you practice homosexuality.
Elf you have your religious beliefs which have nothing to do with facts and science.
If you believe in ghosts that is your right. I dont.
-
Originally posted by Silat
The argument that being gay is "Unnatural" is a religious argument. Otherwise you would quote valid scientific data to prove the point.
no "science" is needed just common sense.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
There is no civil rights being denied here.
You still didn't answer the bit about them not having any special rights if this is made legal. I'm sure it was an oversight.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no "science" is needed just common sense.
I appreciate the laugh, thanks. I'm sure this files nicely next to other common sense assumptions like 'the world is flat', 'the sun revolves around the earth', and 'prohibition will lower crime'.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You still didn't answer the bit about them not having any special rights if this is made legal. I'm sure it was an oversight.
I appreciate the laugh, thanks. I'm sure this files nicely next to other common sense assumptions like 'the world is flat', 'the sun revolves around the earth', and 'prohibition will lower crime'.
what i've said through out this entire thread is to allow civil unions between two "people" It could be girl girl, guy guy, or guy girl.
They'd enjoy all the benifits of being married. It wouldn't be just for gays but all encompasing. viola....no special rights created no pandering to special groups.
On the second one. Answer me this. If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children? Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no "science" is needed just common sense.
Common sense told us that the Sun revolved around the Earth, science proved otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, I'll bite. They have the right to get married to their true love/soul mate/fiance.
That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?
If you're arguing that giving homosexuals the right to marry each other is a 'special right', you're mistaken. Because, by definition, that would give heterosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex as well, though I imagine you'd have to be pretty 'special' indeed to do that.
End result, everyone has the same rights.
Right now, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose, just like heterosexuals.
Everyone has the same right. Also, everyone is denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....across the board, black or white.
Nobody is being descriminated against unfairly just becaue it's against the law to marry a same sex partner. It's simialr to polygamy, incestual marriage and a number of other illegal choices to marry your "true love".
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
On the second one. Answer me this. If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children? Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?
I've asked, and you haven't answered, whether sterile/barren male/female couples should be allowed to marry.
They will also not produce children.
Additionally, there are plenty of people who marry and never (or even intend to) have children.
To extend your point as tortuously as is needed to get somewhere, since reproduction is the determining factor of whether marriage should be allowed, it sounds as if you're making a rather punitive judgement on a significant portion of married couples.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Everyone has the same right. Also, everyone is denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....across the board, black or white.
Was it Napoleon or Snowball who first suggested that 'everybody is equal, but some people are more equal then others'? That seems to be the going concept here.
Sure, homosexuals and heterosexuals are limited by the _exact same laws_, but oddly enough, it appears that heterosexuals somehow come out ahead! Goodness, if I didn't know you better, I'd assume that you and GS were operating from a position of bad faith, and that you know exactly what the conflict is yet are deliberately playing lawyer to further an agenda that becomes less and less supportable as time passes.
But, like I said, I know the two of you better, so I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.
-
Chairboy, I am saying what I believe.
It's illegal to marry a same sex partner, plain and simple. It's the same as other illegal marriage options.....it's just illegal and the majority of our society has decided that.
Homosexuals do not come out behind in any way that I can see.
If you argue that they are denied the ability to marry their true love, well, same goes for polygamists, pedofiles, and a bunch of other people that ours laws and culture have decided to be deviant behavior.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Chairboy, I am saying what I believe.
It's illegal to marry a same sex partner, plain and simple.
In some states. Is there a federal law I don't know about that makes it a crime?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Common sense told us that the Sun revolved around the Earth, science proved otherwise.
same question for you too
Answer me this. If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children? Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?
I guess you guys think that every thing we all should know HAS to be backed up by scientific data and written down some were huh.....common sense should be an uncommon virtue?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've asked, and you haven't answered, whether sterile/barren male/female couples should be allowed to marry.
They will also not produce children.
Additionally, there are plenty of people who marry and never (or even intend to) have children.
To extend your point as tortuously as is needed to get somewhere, since reproduction is the determining factor of whether marriage should be allowed, it sounds as if you're making a rather punitive judgement on a significant portion of married couples.
THE WHOLE ARGUMENT ABOUT NATURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MARRIAGE SUBJECT.... THEY ARE COMPLETLY SEPERATE
On page three Gunslinger posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, then do y'all agree that restricting sterile couples from getting married is ok? Since the conversation has steered to marriage having some special relationship with reproduction. Still no response on the 'black only' restrooms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no one here would agree on the steril couples. The entire tangent has very little to do with the marriage issue but centers around my comments that "being gay goes against nature" Manadew they proceded to tell me that homos are the new evolved man and that trans gender people make up a good portion of the population AND that there really is no genders at all.
PS I answered your question on page 2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you make a good point (even about the analogy )
The difference as I see it is this. Black white brown asian (any color) right now enjoy the SAME rights and treatment as any other color (except for whites they enjoy less rights than minorities in some cases but that is a whole nother thread topic)
where was I...oh yea. Creating gay marriage in your analogy would be like creating "black marriage" we don't write laws for special minorities we write them for everyone. Now you could, as Nash said, say this is a matter of symantics but it is wholey imporating to nearly 70% of the population. This is not another Majority is wrong the world is actual round debates this is one of deep rotted emotions and yes religion too (Disclaimor: I am trying to make my case by leaving religion out of this as not everyone is religious)
When the civil rights movements claimed victory we did not create special rights just for minorities and I don't think we should creat especial rights just for Gays now. No one is conforming Gays to have seperate but equal rights, they enjoy the same rights as eveyone else. Like I said before, if they want special rights than it should apply to everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
-
The reason I equate the two (hey, no shouting needed) is because your rationale for denying marriage rights seems to be predicated on the 'it's unnatural' argument.
Since your definition of un-natural seems to be 'they wouldn't produce children', then logically, a sterile heterosexual couple is also an un-natural union.
If that's established, then I suppose we have a little bit of a complication, since unless you're arguing that the sterile couples should also be denied marriage, then you're being hypocritical.
....but I know what an upstanding member you are, so I'm sure the mistake must lay somewhere on my side and I look forward to your clarification with much anticipation.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
....but I know what an upstanding member you are, so I'm sure the mistake must lay somewhere on my side and I look forward to your clarification with much anticipation.
Now that's what I call tact. :aok
I'm not sure how to answer this becaue you make a good point. I was orriginally going to say that gayness/straitness is a choice were sterility/fertility isn't but then again people (myself included) choose to sterilize themselves so to speak when they choose not to have any more children (in my case a vasectamy...I allready have kids but that point is moot)
I would have to say that sterility is a natural as is disease and disfigurment. It happens among humans through no part of their own. Some would argue that gayness does as well but as a matter of opinion I would have to disagree. I don't see that somone is attracted to the anatamy but the heart.
Either way I stand by my contention that gayness is unatural.
when all else fails use a toadism:
As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.....
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......
EDIT: In addition while taking a crap I had a further thaught. Infertility is a disease or a sickness. Denying marraige based on that is no different than discriminating based on color.
Again I don't consider this a civil rights issue. A gay person who's sterile would have the same rights as a strait person who's steril to MARRY anyone they want of the opposite sex. That's what a marriage is.
-
Originally posted by Mini D BTW... there's alot of "technically" running around in this thread. The predominant use of that word is exactly what brings out the use of the words "erode" and "undermine". Quit trying to reason away gut feelings.
Feelings are not a valid argument so saying others are making bad is a bit silly. Your feelings cannot be proven more right then someone elses so which feelings should we use ?
Tradition is also not a valid argument since the fact that it's been done for a long time as no relation to the right or wrong of it.
Inquisition did not become morally right because we did it for centuries for example.
As for the term marriage that's just playing semantics.
A rose by another name would smell just as sweet.
Making a marriage for gays and calling it something else would not change the fact that it's a marriage.
The reason why he's using logic is because that's the only way to argue without using invalid arguments.
-
Hi Lew,
Originally posted by Silat
And I have a religious question as the whole Gays are against nature statement is religious in scope.
Adam and Eve had kids. Those kids must have done the dead to expand the population. Incest would have been neccessary. So we are all the product of incest?
Now how does this sit with all who believe the bible is the law?
Dont be to contradictory in your answer:)
Elfie is right in that there was no express prohibition against incest until the giving of the law. The biblical prohibitions against incest are found in the Old Testament in three main groups of texts: Leviticus 18:6–18; 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21; Deuteronomy 27:20–23. Incest is also condemned and prohibited in the New Testament in 1 Cor. 5 in a passage in which Paul notes that incest is even deplored amongst pagans.
However, it should be noted that many theologians believe that incest was never right, and since the marriages of Adams children occurred after the fall, that this original incest was also sinful. I'm not going to get into speculation on that point, this is hardly the forum for it when so many basic presuppositions required to argue it are denied, what is clear is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament both condemn the practice.
Regardless Lew, there is no ambiguity in the Bible when it comes to homosexual practices, especially when one considers it was one of the major causes given in the text for God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If one believes the bible's own claim that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16) then one must conclude that God regards homosexual sex as no less a sin than adultery, rape, or theft.
- SEAGOON
-
Once again, that's fine that you believe that, but it should not have a bearing on whether or not the law of the united states is changed to prohibit it.
This is not yet officially a theocracy, despite the best efforts of many to make it into one.
Christian commandments and laws should NOT be used to change the constitution, lest the 1st amendment become violated by the establishment of state religion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Seagoon. ;)
Well, I too believe in inalienable rights. That have existed, forever.
But just because a belief about those rights rose up, does not mean that this belief and its believers can now presume to call them their own. And then to talk to me about how, if I don't particularly care for those beliefs, that I must not care about those inalienable rights.
Nobody owns them. That includes the church.
That's what makes them inalienable.
Howdy Nash,
I'm curious. In your system what is the source of these inalienable rights, how are they granted, and how are they revealed and received? And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?
For instance, in the Christian Theistic system, these rights are part of the moral law of God, they were given by Him to man and they are revealed via His own special revelation (scripture/infallible) and natural revelation (the conscience/fallible). One discerns between truth and error by reference to what his scripture states, so if I have a fallible conviction that theft might be ok, I test that conviction via his infallible word.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by SOB
So as not to hijack the other thread about child custody, I'll bring this to a new thread.
Not to single out Urchin, but I think this statement sums up exactly the misconception that fuels the drive against gay marriage. This issue is not about religious marriage. It is about civil marriage, and in no way involves any church that doesn't want to be a part of it. Civil marriage is performed by a civil authority and the church is not involved...you are just legally recognized as a married couple.
Were it not for this misconception, I think a lot more of the middle-of-the-road folks would be leaning the othe rway on this issue. I imagine a lot of folks just don't like the idea that this would be forced on their church, and mistakenly think that's what at stake here.
The ONE topic missed in "Gay Marriage" discussions, is this: Gay's SHOULD NOT be entitled to the same Benefits that my wife and I have. Anything else, let them have at it, if they enjoy legalized sodomy, etc, let em.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, that's fine that you believe that, but it should not have a bearing on whether or not the law of the united states is changed to prohibit it.
This is not yet officially a theocracy, despite the best efforts of many to make it into one.
Christian commandments and laws should NOT be used to change the constitution, lest the 1st amendment become violated by the establishment of state religion.
Chairboy,
It's actually the other way round.
If the USA had been established by modern secular humanists who denied the existence of absolutes and had created state and federal laws legalizing Homosexual marriages and I was attempting to overturn those laws via religious arguments, your statement would hold true.
However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.
Those laws, starting in the 20th century have been progressively struck down.
What we are discussing is the continuing attempt to entirely decriminalize everything to do with sexual practices once regarded to be perverse and unlawful in the USA. Specifically, we are discussing the wisdom of creating a new right allowing homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender, i.e. Gay Marriage.
All I'm asking is that we simply acknowledge where the change is coming from, this is manifestly not a case of radical Christians trying to criminalize something long allowed in the USA.
- SEAGOON
-
In the civil world, one (two) gets a license to marry, and goes through a ceremony to get married.
They do this to get a sanction of the relationship by society.
This means they want society's approval of that relationship.
Currently, society does not approve of homosexual marraige, but forces are at hand that wish to change that fact.
If you wish society to approve of your behavior, you need to behave within the rules of that society.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy Nash,
I'm curious. In your system what is the source of these inalienable rights, how are they granted, and how are they revealed and received? And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?
For instance, in the Christian Theistic system, these rights are part of the moral law of God, they were given by Him to man and they are revealed via His own special revelation (scripture/infallible) and natural revelation (the conscience/fallible). One discerns between truth and error by reference to what his scripture states, so if I have a fallible conviction that theft might be ok, I test that conviction via his infallible word.
- SEAGOON
Hey Seagoon,
Lets get one thing out of the way, first. I really don't know much about this stuff. My understanding could probably best be described only as a sense. I could have it completely wrong and would not be surprised were it so. So if my explanation is hard to understand, believe me, it won't be your fault. :)
The source of these inalienable rights is ultimately inconceivable, but I'm fine with the word "God" just for expediency's sake. I don't believe that they were granted by God, but that they are just natural - a "way." It sounds trite, but I believe that these inalienable rights exist because that's just the way it is. They can no more be granted than I could grant you a square foot section of water in some river.
So to answer your first question, they are not granted... they are experienced.
How are they revealed and received? In my view, they are not so much revealed as discovered. They have always existed and always will, and man simply becomes more aware of them as he ages. I think it's less an accident that on one side of the world you had "Do unto others...." and on the other "Consider others as yourself," than it is evidence of the awareness of this. Certainly both men came to the same conclusion, yet there'd be some dispute as to how they arrived there.
"And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?" I think our conscience guides us. For the most part, we have an innate sense of right and wrong. Justice and injustice. So we describe certain rights as inalienable, because to deprive us of them would be unconscionable.
So where we mainly differ is the source. You submit that God granted us these rights. I submit that in a strange way, God is these rights. If I choose to accept your belief that these rights are given, then it follows that they can be taken away. God isn't frozen in cryogenic chamber, and we're all aware of how many updates and patches the Bible has been through to get us to Christianity v20.05. First he giveth then he taketh away. Or some might say....
To me it's quite simple. In order to be inalienable they cannot be owned. They cannot be spoken for. They just are.
-
Originally posted by Nash
To me it's quite simple. In order to be inalienable they cannot be owned. They cannot be spoken for. They just are.
but they can be fought for.
(http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/d-day/d-day_qm.jpg)
-
Yup. They can be alotta things for.
Owned, given, and received they cannot.
imho. :)
-
I think the US Constitution's writers agree with you Nash, that's why the first amendment does not give us the rights of freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly.
The first amendment prohibits congress from passing laws which diminish the rights citizens are born with.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
If the USA had been established by modern secular humanists who denied the existence of absolutes and had created state and federal laws legalizing Homosexual marriages and I was attempting to overturn those laws via religious arguments, your statement would hold true.
However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.
Those laws, starting in the 20th century have been progressively struck down.
What we are discussing is the continuing attempt to entirely decriminalize everything to do with sexual practices once regarded to be perverse and unlawful in the USA. Specifically, we are discussing the wisdom of creating a new right allowing homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender, i.e. Gay Marriage.
All I'm asking is that we simply acknowledge where the change is coming from, this is manifestly not a case of radical Christians trying to criminalize something long allowed in the USA.
- SEAGOON
Respectfully disagree... This is developing into a three cornered fight between Church Doctrine vs the Doctrine of Law in America vs The Will of the People with the prize being the legal laws society will have to live by...
The Doctrine of Law in America makes no mention of Religious Qualification or Requirements relative to a Marriage, no Church Approvals are required for such a Union.
With regards to the devoutness or piety of the Creators of the Nation, may I remind you that they clearly defined a seperation between Church and State. Had they intended for Church Law to be the Law of the Land we would certainly have had a significantly different document come outta the Constitutional Congress.
Regardless of how much the idea legalized gay marriage annoys me, reality dictates that neither the Church or the State will have much luck legislating gays outta existance.. any more than the Church or the State has been successful in legislating murder, rape, incest, drugs and corruption outta existance. No matter WHAT the Church or State says or does.. 'they're queer, they're here.."
Frankly, I'd rather they crawled back into whatever closets they live in and stayed the heck off my babble box. I'm hugely unimpressed by thier strident whines for 'equality' and I suspect most 'straight' folks once they get over their knee-jerk PC 'approval' of the 'rights of gays' will quietly vote their propositions into oblivion should they try and force the issue with the electorate.
On the other hand I'd watch the Supreme Court.. THERE's where they stand the greatest chance of 'success' in their efforts for 'recognition'.
Wouldn't be the first time the SC ruled in a different direction than popular opinion.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Regardless of how much the idea legalized gay marriage annoys me, reality dictates that neither the Church or the State will have much luck legislating gays outta existance.. any more than the Church or the State has been successful in legislating murder, rape, incest, drugs and corruption outta existance.
The issue is not homosexuality itself, but whether society will recognise gay marriage as a legitimate union.
We legislate rules on the choice of a marraige partner based on age, genetic closeness, and the number of partners. So to me it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say that rules regulating the gender of partners are legitimate.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime Frankly, I'd rather they crawled back into whatever closets they live in and stayed the heck off my babble box. I'm hugely unimpressed by thier strident whines for 'equality' and I suspect most 'straight' folks once they get over their knee-jerk PC 'approval' of the 'rights of gays' will quietly vote their propositions into oblivion should they try and force the issue with the electorate.
Knee-jerk PC approval ? Why the hell should I be against it ?
I see no logical reason to oppose it. Does it bother me that they want the same rights as I have ? Nope, it only seems fair.
-
You have the right to marry your same gender Avro?
In Oregon and 48 other states, we don't... and never did... Gay or straight
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin You have the right to marry your same gender Avro?
Yes I do. Quebec allows same sex marriages and Canada's government will pass a law this week for it. :aok
One of my cousin got a civil union with her girlfriend. :)
They do not have the same rights as you do since they don't have the right to marry who they love, which is what marriage is about. To me it's a contract between 2 persons who swear to be faithfull to each other.
If it's right for me to be able to marry who I love then it's also right for gays. It would be hypocritical for me to say the contrary.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Knee-jerk PC approval ? Why the hell should I be against it ?
I see no logical reason to oppose it. Does it bother me that they want the same rights as I have ? Nope, it only seems fair.
AGAIN, Gays should NOT be entitled to the same benefits my wife and I have. It goes beyond "rights".
Karaya
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Yes I do. Quebec allows same sex marriages and Canada's government will pass a law this week for it. :aok
One of my cousin got a civil union with her girlfriend. :)
They do not have the same rights as you do since they don't have the right to marry who they love, which is what marriage is about. To me it's a contract between 2 persons who swear to be faithfull to each other.
If it's right for me to be able to marry who I love then it's also right for gays. It would be hypocritical for me to say the contrary.
Oh so they aren't "Married".
Karaya
-
However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.
The founding father's religious beliefs ranged pretty broadly. Some were traditional, conservative Christians but many were not, including some of the greatest. You have people like Franklin, an agnostic/spiritualist. At least nine Free Masons (Washington included) who followed general new testament principals in treating others with kindness and charity, but who deviate enough in their beliefs and rituals to be attacked by evangelicals. You had Jefferson who made the Jefferson Bible by selectively cutting and pasting the “good” philosophies of Jesus in order to: "separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements…" So, to make such a broad statement about the religious convictions of the founding fathers, particularly with such an old testament type issue, is less than convincing.
Of course, to confuse matter even more, many of our greatest founding fathers, and those leaders who followed, also owned slaves and found both religious and secular arguments to support it. The same continued through the Jim Crow era up to the Civil Rights movement, again with justifications for separate but (not really) equal. Humans are flawed, even founding fathers and 19th and 20th century politicians, and human predjuice can be rationalized with little difficulty if the majority is in the mood.
any more than the Church or the State has been successful in legislating murder, rape, incest, drugs and corruption outta existance. No matter WHAT the Church or State says or does.. 'they're queer, they're here.."
Wow, Hang. So if you're gay that’s in the same category as murder, rape and incest? Throw in the Jews, Gypsies and resettlement to the east and you might be able to do something about that menace.
Frankly, I'd rather they crawled back into whatever closets they live in and stayed the heck off my babble box. I'm hugely unimpressed by thier strident whines for 'equality' and I suspect most 'straight' folks once they get over their knee-jerk PC 'approval' of the 'rights of gays' will quietly vote their propositions into oblivion should they try and force the issue with the electorate.
A lot of people wanted Vietnam veterans to just go away during and after the war (until it became hip in the early 1980s). Hard to find a TV show for a while without a crazed, drug addicted Vietnam vet going on a rampage. Damaged goods, drug addicts, drains on society, baby killers…
I've worked with gay people, socialized with gay people and have a gay sister in-law who has been in a committed relationship for three years. At no point has their gayness impacted me personally. Not at work, not socially and not in my family relationships. If I don’t like it on television I can make it go away with the tip of my finger.
Occasionally, my sister in-law giving her partner a back scratch or a hug -- the type of loving gestures I give my wife -- has given me the willies. But that's my problem. These are human beings that I have never seen want anything more than to live a normal life with the deck of cards they have been dealt. Not a one made this “choice.” All they want is to not have to live a lie or hide who they are in order to make other people happy. People who they don’t know and who they don’t impact in any tangible way other than their “feelings.” How radical. There’s a saying I came across in a funny Spacemoose cartoon: “Your rights end where my feelings begin…” Ironically, that was busting on out of control political correctness on college campuses, but it applies here too.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum Oh so they aren't "Married".
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
They get the same benefits, which in essence makes it the same.
AGAIN, Gays should NOT be entitled to the same benefits my wife and I have. It goes beyond "rights".
That's a weak argument since it's based on your personnal opinion on the subject which isn't any better then anyone else's.
I don't like religious conservatives so I want my government to make their religions illegal. :rolleyes:
Do you want your government to makes laws this way ?
If you can't give me a logical reason why they should not get the same benefits as you, you got no argument.
So bring it. :D
-
Gotta say I'm impressed with this thread. If the O'Club was really outta control, this would have degenerated into an explosively diarheaic mess of elephantine proportions, but it's been pretty civil, especially considering a. the subject and b. the strength of emotion behind the conflicting opinions.
Let's tackle religion next. :D
i kid, i kid....
-
Hi Charon,
Originally posted by Charon
So, to make such a broad statement about the religious convictions of the founding fathers, particularly with such an old testament type issue, is less than convincing.
I posted this in another thread, but it applies just as much here.
The following is not a quote from a Christian conservative, it is a quote from Robert P. George, a law professor at an Ivy League University, he is also an expert in the history of the development of American Jurisprudence and has written books on the concept of both natural law and its antithesis legal positivism. Many of his published works center on the connections between British Common Law, Natural Law, and the thought of the founding fathers and Supreme Court Justices through the year. He is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
"The concept of "natural law" is central to the Western tradition of thought about morality, politics, and law. Although the Western tradition is not united around a single theoretical account of natural law, its principal architects and leading spokesmen–from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King–have shared a fundamental belief that humanly created "positive" law is morally good or bad–just or unjust–depending on its conformity to the standards of a "natural" (viz., moral) law that is no mere human creation. The natural law is, thus, a "higher" law, albeit a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation. St. Paul, for example, refers to a law "written on the heart" which informs the consciences even of the Gentiles who do not have the revealed law of Moses to guide them (Romans 2:14—15). Many centuries later, Thomas Jefferson appeals to "the law of nature and nature’s God" in justifying the American Revolution.
Most modern commentators agree that the Founders were firm believers in natural law and sought to craft a constitution that would conform to its requirements, as they understood them, and embody its basic principles for the design of a just political order. The framers of the Constitution sought to create institutions and procedures that would afford respect and protection to those basic rights ("natural rights") which people possess, not as privileges or opportunities granted by the state, but as principles of natural law which it is the moral duty of the state to respect and protect. Throughout the twentieth century, however, a lively debate has existed on the question whether the Constitution incorporates natural law in such a way as to make it a source of judicially enforceable, albeit unwritten, constitutional rights and other guarantees."
Now, no Founding Father, signatary to the constitution, or supreme court justice ever expressed a belief that marriage could occur or should be allowed between two homosexual persons of the same gender, neither can the principle be found in any of our "legal history" including that of English common law (Britain's standing anti-sodomy laws enacted by parliament which were for the most part overturned in 1967 dated back to the 16th century).
So Charon, are you asserting that the original framers of the US Constitution and indeed the American legal system somehow allowed for a right to "gay marriage" but that this right was somehow interrupted somewhere between the founding of the USA and the present day? Or is this in fact another example of legal positivism, i.e. people believe that it is a desirable ends and therefore they construct a new privilege that allows it?
- SEAGOON
-
Did they expressly deny the right?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
So Charon, are you asserting that the original framers of the US Constitution and indeed the American legal system somehow allowed for a right to "gay marriage" but that this right was somehow interrupted somewhere between the founding of the USA and the present day? Or is this in fact another example of legal positivism, i.e. people believe that it is a desirable ends and therefore they construct a new privilege that allows it?
Implicit in the design of the constitutional fathers was to create a system to allow the disenfranchised to be protected.
Unfortunately, the current legal efforts on the part of people who share your beliefs regarding marriage are to actually amend the constitution to specifically forbid something that they did NOT when the document was created.
Past examples of 'new privilege' being created in the interest of justice include giving women and black americans the right to vote, so this would hardly be a new precedent, but it's noteworthy that gay advocates are NOT trying to pass a constitutional amendment, it is their foes that are trying to explicitly outlaw federally a matter that should be handled at the state level. In effect, the anti-gay crowd is the aggressor.
-
Married people shouldn't enjoy special rights period. In fact, you shouldn't need to have a license to be married, George Washington didn't have one. There should be no tax on marriage. Some religions and cultures practice bigomy, the government is essentialy telling them that their religion is wrong and bad. People should be free to marry whatever gender they want, but they shouldn't enjoy any special rights because they're married. Nobody should, that's the root of the problem. Gays want the same rights and law given benefits that married people do. Hell married people should have the same rights as every other american. Because they enjoy special rights, married people are a different class of citizen, or as Chairboy said drawing from Animal Farm, "more equal then others." Of course I'm a libertarian and a constitutionalist, and I have about as much use for dogmatic law as the authors did.
You should all heed Chairboy, I think if he and Shamus combined their mental braun they could even bend a spoon or something.
-
Wow, Hang. So if you're gay that’s in the same category as murder, rape and incest? Throw in the Jews, Gypsies and resettlement to the east and you might be able to do something about that menace.
Ouch! Not the intent Charon.. but it sure sounds that way on a re-read. I was trying to respond to Seagoons comments regarding the 'criminal' nature of homosexuality in the eyes of the law... the point being that legality has diddly to do with the reality... can't legislate crime away, all you can do is put a price tag on it.
How I (or you or anybody else) personally feel about 'open' homosexuality is not the point.. the question is do gays have a right to be gay, and enjoy the same privledges and benefits as 'straight' people. It then follows that should the answer be 'yes', does the constitution guarantee that right.
The issue is not one that deserves constitutional ammendment, rather, the issue is one that needs societal change to come to fuition. As far as I'm aware, folks like me still are in the societal majority, but it's also obvious that this is changing rapidly.. the subject is, (IMHO) one for States to decide, it should follow the normal appelate course up to the SC and eventually it'll be decided there.. I hope.
-
the real hidden agenda behind it all is that religious institutions could be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human-rights codes or hate-speech laws if gay marriage passes.
-
As far as I know, christian churches aren't sued for refusing to marry people of different faiths. I've heard of plenty of cases where a church said 'nope, unless he converts we ain't doing it'.
If people HAVE sued, they sure haven't made any headway.
-
I figured as much Hang… :)
Seagoon, Chairboy has a pretty good response. Similarly, "natural law." has been open to the whim of whatever culture deemed natural and unnatural. There is no single, codified “natural law.” Homosexuality exists in nature, and has existed in humanity since the beginning as not the optimal course of nature, but certainly a natural one. Some cultures have seen it as being unnatural from a moral perspective and some don’t seem to have worried all that much about it, including Aristotle’s who is mentioned in your post quote on natural law.
A hundred years before the founding of America, colonial interpretations of “natural law” allowed the killing of witches. During the founding of America, the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution with salves falling under property rights. A woman’s right to vote didn’t feature into the version of natural law fully embraced by our founding fathers, and was left up to the states with predictable results. The same applies to Women’s property rights. If you want to be rigid about the view of natural law embraced by the founding fathers then it’s time to start turning back the clock beyond gay marriage, and undue the damage that has resulted from the legal positivism in these areas. Unless you just want to cherry pick which “natural laws” suit your agenda. Frankly, without too much trouble you can find secular and religious groups that will support the repeal of suffrage and civil rights.
Souther Baptists, for example:
“The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”
I suppose if a wife disagreed with her husband’s choice for president, she had better get with the program. Isn’t that part of natural law, supported by the scriptures and “how it was” 2,000 years ago? I can dredge up any number of missives from white Christian supremacists supporting natural law in relation to current race issues. In a more Darwinian angle, the Nazi’s based much of their race policy on a “natural order.” You can also find Christian sects that find sex for reasons other than procreation unnatural. Masturbation as a sin. Interracial marriage as unnatural. Marriage between religions as unnatural. Eating pork as unnatural. You can also find Christian and other religious sects that have no moral problems with homosexuality and gay marriage. This pastor is particularly thoughtful on the issue, and put in plenty of research to arrive at his personal Christian foundation towards homosexuals: Bruce Lowe (http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm)
I’m a believer in individual, civil rights. If this were about something like gay affirmative action, I might be on the other side of the debate. But, “moral” or not, gay behavior does not impact me as an individual in any tangible way, does not impact society IMO (I believe in personal responsibility and the responsibility of parents) and see no reason to deny someone else that which I enjoy just because I don’t like who they are.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You have the right to marry your same gender Avro?
In Oregon and 48 other states, we don't... and never did... Gay or straight
Well you can marry the same gender in Vermont ... and I actually don't think we are the only ones.
_____________________________ ___
Most of you dare not even be scientific about this? or do you even understand science?
I've made several points ... even gone through pains to try to educate some of you, but you ignore them?
do you not understand?
or not care?
just waiting for your turn to talk agin and say how it should be obvious with common sense....
_____________________________ _
GunS and other 'common sense' folks
just answer me .. what is an average human ?... what's the standard deviation from that?
how far can you be from the mean human until your a 'freak' that gets throwen into your bucket of mutation? If your attracted to same sex? If your born thinking your a diffrant sex? If your born with genetic oddities like XXY? If your born with ambigous gentials?
do you assume from the start to seperate humans into male and female? IF you do where do you draw the line ... not one of you common sense types wants to answer such things? Proably becuase you can't answer it.
if you do, how do you account for the rest? do you throw them out of your stats?
I mean really what can you PROVE 100% about humans. very little.. and I ask, but you folks don't answer. Are you trolling me?
Science is very good at showing how many assumptions we make. 'Common Sense' is alllll about assumptions.
Just tell me, with your sharp-common sense minds, where you would draw the line? Who's a freak? Who's normal? Who's a mutation? A girl can look normal but have a XXY? What if a girl is just a lesibian, something in her head?
tell me ... since you guys like your definitions of marriage so much ... define the sexes for me..... don't leave anyone out.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Elf you have your religious beliefs which have nothing to do with facts and science.
If you believe in ghosts that is your right. I dont.
That all depends on your belief system Silat :)
IF....you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then yes, I am basing my statements on fact. Otoh, if I was your shoes and had your belief system, then your statement would be correct. :)
Just curious, why this response to one of my posts where I was responding to -Dead? :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gotta say I'm impressed with this thread. If the O'Club was really outta control, this would have degenerated into an explosively diarheaic mess of elephantine proportions, but it's been pretty civil, especially considering a. the subject and b. the strength of emotion behind the conflicting opinions.
Let's tackle religion next. :D
i kid, i kid....
OT: 2 weeks ago, this thread would not have made it past page one, maybe two.
-
OT: Because it actually is as bad usual and I'm looking at it through rose colored glasses? Or because we've cleaned up our act a bit? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
OT: Consensous here indicates it has improved dramatically. Much to my surprise, actually.
-
I should also point out that Robert P. George (cited by Seagoon) has some fairly extreme views on natural law, and bases those views on some fairly extreme views of secularism. And although George claims that the tenants of his version of “natural law” move beyond religious dogma, he does a poor job of explaining how. Perhaps he does in some of his books. He does seem to be a bit of a cherry picker though (not uncommon with many academics who have an established “position”). For example, he often cites the root of natural law using Aristotle and Plato as examples that predate Christianity, yet he ignores (in what I have read) the fact that Plato was [edit: likely] a homosexual: "Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."
[edit: actually, George participated in a "mock trial" on natural law where this point was debated. The quality of the translations were the sticking point where Plato etc. were concerned. The debated Plato quote in question from Laws: "When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be natural, but unnatural when male mates with male or female with female…" And yet the same Plato saw “real love” as being homosexual in nature in his earlier the Symposium, and has a variety of marriage theories and constructs that I doubt George would be quick to embrace. Maybe he’s not too solid of a source for any natural law argument, beyond his role in the history of philosophy :)]
However, George goes into great detail finding the most extreme examples of secular humanism, such as the 18th century philosopher David Hume (and I believe he’s a bit extreme in his use of Hume) to make his points.
Here is George's view of heterosexual marriage:
The secularist orthodoxy also rejects the Judeo--Christian understanding of marriage as a bodily, emotional, and spiritual union of one man and one woman, ordered to the generating, nurturing, and educating of children, marked by exclusivity and permanence, and consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, even if not, in every case, in fact.
Doesn’t sit true with me, as this can very much be the driving force behind a secular marriage, depending upon the individual’s view of spirituality.
Marriage, for secularists, is a legal convention whose goal is to support a merely emotional union--which may or may not, depending upon the subjective preferences of the partners, be marked by commitments of exclusivity and permanence, which may or may not be open to children depending on whether partners want children, and in which sexual acts of any type mutually agreeable to the partners are perfectly acceptable.
This can also be true, and in no way, IMO, weakens marriage for others. It also points out by implication that marriage withouth wanting to have children is not desirable. And how about that awful: “... in which sexual acts of any type mutually agreeable to the partners are perfectly acceptable.” Here’s some more on that:
As any type of mutually agreeable consensual sexual act is considered as good as any other, secularist orthodoxy rejects the idea, common not only to Judaism and Christianity but to the world's other great cultures and religious traditions, that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution. According to secularist orthodoxy, same--sex "marriages" are no less truly marriages than those between partners of opposite sexes who happen to be infertile.
You see, it’s not the gays that are ruining marriage, it’s you and your wife performing oral sex that are weakening marriage and opening the door for the gays. And of course, sex outside of marriage is wrong as well, due to natural law (which ignores how common it has been in nature and even human existence).
And orthodox secularism, consistent with its view of what marriage is, declines to view marriage as the principle of rectitude in sexual conduct. So orthodox secularists reject as utterly benighted the notion that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. For them, what distinguishes morally good from bad sex is not whether it is marital, but, rather, whether it is consensual. The consent of the parties involved (or, as in the case of adultery, other parties with a legitimate interest) is the touchstone of sexual morality. So long as there is no coercion or deception involved, orthodox secularism proposes no ground of moral principle for rejecting premarital sex, promiscuity, "open" marriage, etc.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/GeorgeClashOrthodoxies.shtml
And here’s what needs to be done, above and beyond same-sex marriage.
The institution of marriage has been damaged by laws and policies that compromise its integrity and weaken people's capacity to enter into marriage with a proper regard for its norms of permanence, exclusivity, and fidelity. These laws and policies—such as so-called no-fault divorce—reinforce and even encourage essentially anti-marital practices, and provide fertile ground for the flourishing of ideologies that pave the way for worse things.
"Covenant marriage" legislation is a step in the right direction. So is the elimination of laws permitting one spouse to divorce another in the absence of fault without the other spouse's consent. As we work for reform, we must also hold the line against the latest crop of misbegotten ideas, such as the legal recognition of nonmarital sexual cohabitation and the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10381
Again, its not just the gays that need to be put in their places for the good of society.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
"Although the Western tradition is not united around a single theoretical account of natural law, its principal architects and leading spokesmen–from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King–have shared a fundamental belief that humanly created "positive" law is morally good or bad–just or unjust–depending on its conformity to the standards of a "natural" (viz., moral) law that is no mere human creation. The natural law is, thus, a "higher" law, albeit a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.
Most modern commentators agree that the Founders were firm believers in natural law and sought to craft a constitution that would conform to its requirements, as they understood them, and embody its basic principles for the design of a just political order. The framers of the Constitution sought to create institutions and procedures that would afford respect and protection to those basic rights ("natural rights") which people possess, not as privileges or opportunities granted by the state, but as principles of natural law which it is the moral duty of the state to respect and protect."
[/b]
Charon gave great responses, but I would like to add...
Seagoon, as I posted to you earlier, it seems you assume that your interpretation of the Bible and your flavor of Christianity is the accurate imbodiment of natural law. Which may or may not be the case.
It seems to me that natural law should be absolute and unchanging. You have shown that Biblical and Mosaic law have evolved...as has church dogma, even on the subject of same sex marriage (see previous post to you).
But I look at the Constitution as the attempt by the Founders to codify those rights beyond life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Interestingly, I do not see in the Bible the right to free speach (in fact usually quite the opposite...see 3rd Commandment for example). Equally interesting, I do not see in the Consititution the right of parents to kill disrespectful children (which is commanded in both Old and New Testiments).
But I do see in your quote a very important concept. Government should protect natural rights, even if they are unpopular. While the pursuit of happiness is not a completely unconstrained right in the US...it does seem that it is only infringed when it is in the best interest of society or where the rights of others would be infringed. I really cannot see how preventing same sex marriage provides a benefit to society or how it infringes on the rights of others.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Now, no Founding Father, signatary to the constitution, or supreme court justice ever expressed a belief that marriage could occur or should be allowed between two homosexual persons of the same gender
[/b]
I also do not see anywhere in the Constitution that the Framers excluded the right to same sex marriage either...eventhough homosexuality certainly existed back then. So I'm not sure how this argument is relevant.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Well you can marry the same gender in Vermont ... and I actually don't think we are the only ones.
Vermont is "Civil Unions" Massachusetts is the sole state where gay "Marraige" is ok AFAIK.
Originally posted by AVRO1
One of my cousin(s) got a civil union with her girlfriend.
Are they hot? pictures...
-
lol Holden. :)
Originally posted by Torque
the real hidden agenda behind it all is that religious institutions could be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human-rights codes or hate-speech laws if gay marriage passes.
I've never actually heard this angle spoken of. Has it been responded to?
-
News item: Canada legalizes same sex marriage. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
News item: Canada legalizes same sex marriage. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html
What extraordinary timing.
I'll be sure to let y'all know if my world turns into a sea of chaos and looting.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
OT: Consensous here indicates it has improved dramatically. Much to my surprise, actually.
Ye of little faith! :D
-
Hi again Nash,
Sorry again about the delay. I'm doing a lousy job keeping up with the posts here. As you've already discovered I'm none to quick generally.
Originally posted by Nash
The source of these inalienable rights is ultimately inconceivable, but I'm fine with the word "God" just for expediency's sake. I don't believe that they were granted by God, but that they are just natural - a "way." It sounds trite, but I believe that these inalienable rights exist because that's just the way it is. They can no more be granted than I could grant you a square foot section of water in some river.
So to answer your first question, they are not granted... they are experienced.
How are they revealed and received? In my view, they are not so much revealed as discovered. They have always existed and always will, and man simply becomes more aware of them as he ages. I think it's less an accident that on one side of the world you had "Do unto others...." and on the other "Consider others as yourself," than it is evidence of the awareness of this. Certainly both men came to the same conclusion, yet there'd be some dispute as to how they arrived there.
"And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?" I think our conscience guides us. For the most part, we have an innate sense of right and wrong. Justice and injustice. So we describe certain rights as inalienable, because to deprive us of them would be unconscionable.
So where we mainly differ is the source. You submit that God granted us these rights. I submit that in a strange way, God is these rights. If I choose to accept your belief that these rights are given, then it follows that they can be taken away. God isn't frozen in cryogenic chamber, and we're all aware of how many updates and patches the Bible has been through to get us to Christianity v20.05. First he giveth then he taketh away. Or some might say....
To me it's quite simple. In order to be inalienable they cannot be owned. They cannot be spoken for. They just are.
Again, I don't want to misrepresent you, so tell me if this is a caricature. It seems like you are saying that these inalienable rights and generally some sort of objective natural morals are woven into the fabric of the universe. That there have always been things that are right and wrong because they are. Further these eternal morals are discovered through our subjective feelings.
It seems to me that there are some insurmountable problems with that idea, not the least of which is that it makes morals so subjective as to be only of use to individuals and not societies.
For instance, lets take the current example. Your sense of these universal rights tells you that gay marriage is good, mine tells me that it is bad. We are instantly at an impasse. To what should we appeal to break the deadlock?
Well we could say that the greater the number of "receptors" whose sense we poll on the subject, the closer we come to an accurate reading of the true universal norm. But in this case, here int he United States, the greater number of people "sense" that Gay Marriage is wrong and have expressed this again and again via their votes. This methodology is therefore inevitably going to be unacceptable to proponents of gay marriage who are sure their sense is right.
So what recourse are we left with? To assume that high court judges have a more highly tuned sense of these universal morals than all of us combined and turn to them for an answer?
(Please note that these questions are not rhetorical, I sincerely want to hear what you think.)
But just for food for thought, let me ask you to also consider the Christian theists explanation for the differences and hear your reactions.
The Christian theist, as I said would indeed say that there are fixed universal moral laws (a synopsis of which can be found in the Decalogue), that these moral laws are an expression of the perfect and unchanging character of an all-good God, and that they find their source in him. In Creation they were imprinted on the heart of man, and for a short time man held them aright. But then in rebelling man fell, he transgressed these laws and his moral nature was itself corrupted.
Now man's conscience sometimes has glimmers of that true moral law, but the rebellion of the fallen human heart leads him more often to desire to do what is right in his own eyes. Therefore he now tends to call what God says is evil, good, and what God says is good, evil. Often he even denies that there is any way to distinguish at all and that everything is gray in an attempt to free himself from all responsibility, the old "What is truth?" of Pilate.
This state of affairs is reflected at several places in scripture, the statement of Eccles 7:29 that "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes" for instance, but it is nowhere more clearly expressed than by Paul in Romans 1:18-32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=50)
Certainly that would explain the current state of affairs and even our current progress in legislation, wouldn't it? What objections can you see to the possibility that what Paul wrote is simply true?
- SEAGOON
PS: I disagree with the assessment that the bible has been updated or patched, but I'm out of time and don't have the energy required for a defense of what Theologians call "Progressive Revelation" or the Tripartite division of the Law, but if someone wants to prod me with a stick on it later on, I might be able to muster something.
Too...pooped...must...find... sleep...
-
Heya Seagoon,
I hope you don't mind me doing the cut-up quote thing, but there's so much to answer to that it'd be pretty hard to navigate otherwise.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi again Nash,
Again, I don't want to misrepresent you, so tell me if this is a caricature. It seems like you are saying that these inalienable rights and generally some sort of objective natural morals are woven into the fabric of the universe. That there have always been things that are right and wrong because they are. Further these eternal morals are discovered through our subjective feelings.
Exactly.
I don't know if "subjective feelings" would be the words I'd use, but other than that, yeah. Absolutely.
It seems to me that there are some insurmountable problems with that idea, not the least of which is that it makes morals so subjective as to be only of use to individuals and not societies.
Well, we know full and well what "subjective" means.... and it would seem to apply here. But that's a limitation of our language, and not representative of what it hints at with regard to this.
Listen.....
I know why those words are being used. They infer "man-made"... perception... not neccessarily real...."it's just one guy sayin'." Subjective.
And here comes the Bible... to tell some of y'all: "No wait a second! It aint subjective! It's right here in print! Black and white!"
So now you get to say "See? objective."
Unh-uh. No way.
For instance, lets take the current example. Your sense of these universal rights tells you that gay marriage is good, mine tells me that it is bad. We are instantly at an impasse. To what should we appeal to break the deadlock?
See that's the problem, and I feel like a 12 year-old trying to explain something like this to someone of your stature. You are telling me that your sense of "universal rights" tells you that gay marriage is bad. I just don't accept that that could possibly be your sense. It is derived from something, but that something is not your sense.
Because it is not remotely at odds with the universal truths yer talking about.
Love is love. Fer Chrissakes.
If you want to really know universal truths, step away from the books. Go out into the courtyard. Inhale, exhale. Stop looking. Start accepting.
Well we could say that the greater the number of "receptors" whose sense we poll on the subject, the closer we come to an accurate reading of the true universal norm. But in this case, here int he United States, the greater number of people "sense" that Gay Marriage is wrong and have expressed this again and again via their votes. This methodology is therefore inevitably going to be unacceptable to proponents of gay marriage who are sure their sense is right.
No. It doesn't work that way. Are you trying to tell me that universal truth is at the mercy of the majority of public opinion? We've got a major disagreement here.
So what recourse are we left with? To assume that high court judges have a more highly tuned sense of these universal morals than all of us combined and turn to them for an answer?
Good question. I'm not at all sure that they get it. And I'm not at all sure that that is a bad thing.
(Please note that these questions are not rhetorical, I sincerely want to hear what you think.)
But just for food for thought, let me ask you to also consider the Christian theists explanation for the differences and hear your reactions.
The Christian theist, as I said would indeed say that there are fixed universal moral laws (a synopsis of which can be found in the Decalogue), that these moral laws are an expression of the perfect and unchanging character of an all-good God, and that they find their source in him. In Creation they were imprinted on the heart of man, and for a short time man held them aright. But then in rebelling man fell, he transgressed these laws and his moral nature was itself corrupted.
Now man's conscience sometimes has glimmers of that true moral law, but the rebellion of the fallen human heart leads him more often to desire to do what is right in his own eyes. Therefore he now tends to call what God says is evil, good, and what God says is good, evil. Often he even denies that there is any way to distinguish at all and that everything is gray in an attempt to free himself from all responsibility, the old "What is truth?" of Pilate.
This state of affairs is reflected at several places in scripture, the statement of Eccles 7:29 that "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes" for instance, but it is nowhere more clearly expressed than by Paul in Romans 1:18-32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=50)
Certainly that would explain the current state of affairs and even our current progress in legislation, wouldn't it? What objections can you see to the possibility that what Paul wrote is simply true?
No no... no... No.
It is remarkable, now, having gone through a hell I would wish upon no one.... how much of a chord that strikes. How eerily simular. You might not be able to see it from here, but from my vantage point it's like, my god, that's lame.
It is taking man's fallibility and his want for restoration and wrapping it all up in a neat package of salvation. Indeed it connects many (by far not all) dots for those unwilling or unable to look beyond it.
This, Seagoon, is offensive:
Often he even denies that there is any way to distinguish at all and that everything is gray in an attempt to free himself from all responsibility, the old "What is truth?" of Pilate.
.
I'm not shirking responsibility in order that I deny truth. I'm actively seeking it. I know I will never find it. I'm okay with that. I just simply discard your automatic "here it is" version of it and don't really appreciate yer basically sayin' that I'm a putz on account of it.
-
Nash,
I think "universal truth" when it comes to morals is by and large societal consensus.
Stealing is considered wrong. But fundamentally why is it wrong? Because it is taking something that belongs to someone else. But the notion of "belong" is a societal consensus.
Many Native American tribes had no notion of land ownership so one could not steal land from another individual. Native peoples around the world had similar societal beliefs. Austrailian aborigini tribal belief was that the people belonged to the land, not the other way around. One of my favorite movies "The Gods Must be Crazy" was based on a coke bottle screwing up a tribal belief structure because the tribe had no notion of ownership and suddenly members started fighting over ownership of the bottle.
What is wrong is based on what the majority of the society thinks it is. Gay Marriage is a divisive issue because it is not a 5 - 95 split, it is closer to 50 - 50.
-
Ha - great movie.
Holden - it's a chicken and egg.
Is "universal truth" a construct of man? Are laws resembling them just arbitrary? Out of the blue? And because the words sounded good together?
Or is it the basis upon which laws were made in the first place?
I think the latter....
But I aint a big fan of this one force called "Christianity" actin' all cool... smirkin'.... sayin' "Universal Law?"... Yup, that's us. We did that.
As if.
-
IMO, the only universal truth's not guided by societal consensus are the physical laws of the universe. E=MC2 works whether we believe it does or not.
But whether something is good or bad is only good or bad if we believe it to be so, and if that good / bad choice is shared by the majority of the society, it becomes a more or a taboo or a law.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Chairboy,
It's actually the other way round.
If the USA had been established by modern secular humanists who denied the existence of absolutes and had created state and federal laws legalizing Homosexual marriages and I was attempting to overturn those laws via religious arguments, your statement would hold true.
However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.
Those laws, starting in the 20th century have been progressively struck down.
What we are discussing is the continuing attempt to entirely decriminalize everything to do with sexual practices once regarded to be perverse and unlawful in the USA. Specifically, we are discussing the wisdom of creating a new right allowing homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender, i.e. Gay Marriage.
All I'm asking is that we simply acknowledge where the change is coming from, this is manifestly not a case of radical Christians trying to criminalize something long allowed in the USA.
- SEAGOON
First off lets remember where are system of laws really comes from. It wasnt the bible.
The reason that Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the basis of our legal system is that is what they have always heard from their pulpits and they refuse to look it up for themselves.
If they would look it up, they would find that our Constitution and our tri-partite system of government is based on the legal philosophy of the French aristocrat, the Baron de Montesquieu (as interpreted by James Madison), and on English Common law going back to the Magna Carta.
-
Benjamin Franklin, one of the original architects of the United States government, introduced as a model for the country's framework document the constitution of the Iroquois Nation, according to a Smithsonian Institution specialist of American Indian history.
On the radio program "Native America Calling" Hill said the Iroquois document also presented to framers of the U.S. Constitution the concept of a two-house legislature and a combined government structure of state jurisdictions and a national government.
link (http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040927-32.html)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy News item: Canada legalizes same sex marriage. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html
:aok
For instance, lets take the current example. Your sense of these universal rights tells you that gay marriage is good, mine tells me that it is bad. We are instantly at an impasse. To what should we appeal to break the deadlock?
The only thing that works for that is logic.
Well we could say that the greater the number of "receptors" whose sense we poll on the subject, the closer we come to an accurate reading of the true universal norm. But in this case, here int he United States, the greater number of people "sense" that Gay Marriage is wrong and have expressed this again and again via their votes. This methodology is therefore inevitably going to be unacceptable to proponents of gay marriage who are sure their sense is right.
The earth wasn't any flatter when everyone believed it to be flat.
As you can see, public opinion does not make something a fact.
The Christian theist, as I said would indeed say that there are fixed universal moral laws (a synopsis of which can be found in the Decalogue), that these moral laws are an expression of the perfect and unchanging character of an all-good God, and that they find their source in him. In Creation they were imprinted on the heart of man, and for a short time man held them aright. But then in rebelling man fell, he transgressed these laws and his moral nature was itself corrupted.
You're wasting your time with that argument unless you can proove that your religion is right. Come again when you have.
Often he even denies that there is any way to distinguish at all and that everything is gray in an attempt to free himself from all responsibility, the old "What is truth?" of Pilate.
There is a way to distinguish between good and evil that does not include religion, it's called ethics.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
The earth wasn't any flatter when everyone believed it to be flat. As you can see, public opinion does not make something a fact.
I can prove that the world is round, as did Eratosthenes some 2300 years ago. Can you prove the goodness or badness of gay marraige?
That gay marraige is good or bad is entirely based on public perception. There is no real world measure of good or bad, there is only perception.
Therefore, if the majority of opinion is that it is bad, it is bad. If good, it is good.
Public opinion does shape morals.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin Can you prove the goodness or badness of gay marriage?
It gives more people the right to marry who they love.
Do SSM have bad effects on society in Belgium and Holland ?
I don't see anything negative about it unless Belgium and Holland have had problems from allowing them that is. In which case I would have to weight in the positives against the negatives.
That gay marraige is good or bad is entirely based on public perception. There is no real world measure of good or bad, there is only perception.
Therefore, if the majority of opinion is that it is bad, it is bad. If good, it is good.
The fact that it's the opinion of the majority in no way indicates if it is right or wrong. If public opinion was wrong about the earth being flat they could also be wrong about gay marriages. That's why public opinion is not a valid argument.
Public opinion does shape morals.
I never said it did not. I only said that public opinion is not always right and is therefore not a valid argument.
A valid argument must be logical. Like the following :
Is it right for me to marry the woman I love ?
Is it right for a gays and lesbians to marry who they loves ?
If I answer yes to the first question then I must also answer yes to the second one since what's good for me is, logically, also good for them. Either that or admit I'm an hypocrite.
I'm out of here, this thread makes me :(
-
tax paying citizens having their basic rights thwarted by the dogma of tax exempt instituions.
there has to been irony there somewhere.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That gay marraige is good or bad is entirely based on public perception. There is no real world measure of good or bad, there is only perception.
Therefore, if the majority of opinion is that it is bad, it is bad. If good, it is good.
Public opinion does shape morals.
Public opinion, in hindsight, is proven to be wrong nearly as often as it's proven to be right.
It was public opinion in Germany in the 1930s that led to the extermination of the Jews and Gypsies.
It was public opinion in America that denied women the right to vote.
It was public opinion in the South that sanctioned segregation.
A question, Holden- (I LOVE that name, BTW)- Exactly what negative impact on your life would gay marriage cause? How will it impact- YOU?
-
Hey Seagoon, my apologies. I regret taking that tone with you. Chalk it up to a bad day. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Seagoon, my apologies. I regret taking that tone with you. Chalk it up to a bad day. Cheers.
NP Nash, I didn't take offense, I was actually more sorry for writing poorly enough to give you the impression that the comment was targeted specifically at you, rather than being a more universal statement about biblical anthropology. Sorry about that.
I know this is off topic, I'll try to write something on topic later, but for what its worth, please keep in mind that our life stories have more similarities than differences, although the avenues they have followed have ultimately been different. When I read many of your posts I realize that at one time I would have said very similar things, and I too have gone through some similar struggles. All that I am, and that is very little, is all of grace and none of me.
As far as being bookish, as opposed to out there inhaling and exhaling amongst real people, sometimes I wish I really could dwell secure in the safer world of books. I spent too long in the world and of the world, and it seems like most of my week is spent with dealing with the real life fall-out of human depravity and how I wish I could just read about that.
I feel a lot of affinity for John Calvin who spent his whole life wishing he could devote himself to study in Strasbourg (and almost succeeded at one point) but instead was pulled back into the realities of pastoral ministry and leadership in the city of Geneva. Still, what one gains in "book larnin'" one sacrifices in terms of experience gained under the tutelage of the school of hard knocks.
So all in all I appreciate the ability to be able to say to someone in counseling , "Even if the word didn't teach me X, experience would have confirmed it" even if I sometimes regret having to pass through the crucible of experience.
Anywho, PAX EX Homes,
SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Torque
tax paying citizens having their basic rights thwarted by the dogma of tax exempt instituions.
there has to been irony there somewhere.
Never heard it put like that, but that is beautiful.
-
This thread has gone on for close to a week now and I haven't seen one person change their origional stance.
Group A feels that marriage was ordained by God as a union between a man and a woman and that we have no power to change what God has ordained. There are also those who are afraid that changing the defenition of marriage will leave it open to further interpetation and more changes in the future, ie number of spouses or human animal unions.
Group B seems to be more secular and looks at marriage as more of a legal definition and can't find a logical reason why same sex marriage should not be legal.
I don't see that there can be any comprimise between the two groups.
So far in the US, those who feel moraly obligated to legally block same sex marrage have outweighed the proponents of gay marrage in most states. But as the ratio of the religious population, or legislators, to non religious population continues to decline, we will see more and more states legalize gay marrage. It's already happened in Canada.
Regardless of what laws are made or unmade, there will be no comprimise between the two groups IMO. The subject is just too emotional.
Although I must say that the conduct of all posters in this thread has been most exemplary. Maybe there is hope for the O club after all.
On the subject of the right to marry the person you love, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any legal standing for it. Say I love my brothers wife. Can I marry her? What if i'm in love with two people. Should I be able to marry both? How about arranged marages where both party's don't even know each other. Of course love is optimal in todays society but it wasn't always. As far as I know, legally love has nothing to do with marrage. So to say that gays don't have the right to marry who they love is not a very good argument in favor of same sex marriage.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
This thread has gone on for close to a week now and I haven't seen one person change their origional stance.
Yeah, but it's been polite. ;)
-
There is a international relations doctrine (whose name escapes me) that states that one country should respect the licensing of another. So if an Aussie comes to Canada with a valid drivers licence they are free to drive here and don't have to get a Canadian drivers licence. I wonder how this will play out regarding couples who have been married in Canada.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
This thread has gone on for close to a week now and I haven't seen one person change their origional stance.
Not too suprising on an ego-filled BBS.
How many folks do you think have been led or pushed to closely examine their actual beliefs on this topic though?
Therein lies the value.
I am sure that even Seagoon, in opposition to homosexual marriage, realizes that homosexuals are still "all God's Children."
So what is this really all about? If you are of the Christian/religious persuasion, you've been told that
Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (KJV)
You've also been told:
Mat 22:39: And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Lastly, you've been told:
Mat 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Wassa problem?
-
Originally posted by Gaylord
A question, Holden- Exactly what negative impact on your life would gay marriage cause? How will it impact- YOU?
Once more, marraige is a couple asking society to sanction their relationship. It is up to society whether to approve, and it is up to society to choose the conditions under which the approval is given.
My posts in this thread have been attempts to point out logical fallacies rather than posting my point of view, there is only one argument against which I feel may have some validity.
That being, if gay marraige has a completely 100% same status as traditional marraige, then a judge choosing a couple for a certain child adoption would be barred from considering the gender relationship of the parents.
All else being equal, a judge could not say that perhaps a straight couple may be better for a child than a gay couple.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
This thread has gone on for close to a week now and I haven't seen one person change their original stance.
Originally posted by Toad
Not too suprising on an ego-filled BBS.
How many folks do you think have been led or pushed to closely examine their actual beliefs on this topic though?
Therein lies the value.
I am sure that even Seagoon, in opposition to homosexual marriage, realizes that homosexuals are still "all God's Children."
So what is this really all about? If you are of the Christian/religious persuasion, you've been told that
You've also been told:
Lastly, you've been told:
Wassa problem?
What I was trying to say is that it's mostly an exercise in futility to try and convert the opposition to your way of thinking for either side.
Which ever side has the most voting power will make the laws while the other side will continue to scream, jump up and down and pull out their hair.
-
Full rights gay marriage approved in Spain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm
-
In the Bibical way of thinking--go forth and multiply--homosexuality makes no sense.
In the common sense way of thinking--survival of the species by reproduction--homosexuality makes no sense.
In Natures way of thinking we are consuming our natural resources faster than re-supply--homosexuality makes perfect sense.
From a moral or social way of thinking I belive it to be wrong--however if one of my offspring ever come to me and tell me they are gay I'd probably change my way of thinking.
Off topic we need to wipe out drug dealers--child molesters--murderers--terrorists and so on. When that is done maybe we can stand back and listen to our politics on gay mairrage.
-
Fact: Homosexuals arent born, they are recruited... Why should a perversion formerly treated as a mental illness be given a legitimate status??? Whats next in the decline? Legalized Man - Boy unions? Maybe even Beastiality will receive status!
-
Being left handed used to be treated as a mental illness as well as a sign of possession by the devil, what's your point?
Respectfully, I disagree with your views, 6GunUSMC. Evidence does not support your assertion, but I'm sure this is another one of those issues where people would prefer not to be confused by the facts, their minds are already made up, as your post suggests.
I think your effort to equate homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia is pretty misleading, especially considering that heterosexuals are more highly represented in child-sex scandals as a percentage of the population then gays.
-
Emotion displaces reason in the mind, and vice versa. Pitting reason against emotion never works.
-
Fact: Homosexuals arent born, they are recruited... Why should a perversion formerly treated as a mental illness be given a legitimate status??? Whats next in the decline? Legalized Man - Boy unions? Maybe even Beastiality will receive status!
I couldn't imagine any amount of non-forcable recruitment that would result in me changing teams or being a switch hitter. YMMV of course.
Fact: The homosexuals I've talked to about this state they knew they were different well before anybody "recruited them," or they even knew another gay person. There weren't even gay people on television to "infect" them at the time. The same homosexuals have straight siblings, so not a family thing.
Man-boy unions involve minors just like man girl unions - so age of consent would rule that out.
Man-animal unions involve only one consenting human adult, so that's not likely
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
Not too suprising on an ego-filled BBS.
How many folks do you think have been led or pushed to closely examine their actual beliefs on this topic though?
Therein lies the value.
I am sure that even Seagoon, in opposition to homosexual marriage, realizes that homosexuals are still "all God's Children."
So what is this really all about? If you are of the Christian/religious persuasion, you've been told that
You've also been told:
Lastly, you've been told:
Wassa problem?
Amazing how some of those biblical quotes could be from YODA:)
-
Originally posted by Charon
I couldn't imagine any amount of non-forcable recruitment that would result in me changing teams or being a switch hitter. YMMV of course.
Charon
Charon but that is exactly what they are afraid of:)
If freedom is for all of us then all those who are so afraid may just realize who they really are:)
-
(http://mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/make-it-stop.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Charon but that is exactly what they are afraid of:)
If freedom is for all of us then all those who are so afraid may just realize who they really are:)
I think that is a totally inaccurate statement all the way around, it assumes much.
It's probably a pretty safe bet to say that the people posting in this thread already know their own sexual orientation.
For me the issue is simple, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and thats good enough for me.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think that is a totally inaccurate statement all the way around, it assumes much.
It's probably a pretty safe bet to say that the people posting in this thread already know their own sexual orientation.
For me the issue is simple, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and thats good enough for me.
I rest my case.
Your bible isnt mine... We are a free nation. And I will always stand up to stop your bible from controlling this country.
Keep your religious beliefs for your family and your GOD.
The real reason we went to war
http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2...we_will_de.html
Bush: We Will Defend Traditional Marriage in Iraq
President Bush reassured Americans this week that he has not lost sight of the reason that the US went into Iraq more than two years ago: to defend traditional marriage in that country. Mr. Bush articulated a clear strategy for attaining that goal, including an amendment to the Iraqi constitution that will define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Conservative Christians cheer President's refusal to pull out
__________________
-
let's think this way: how would legalizing gay marriage will affect the non-homosexual population?
will we get smaller paychecks?
less freedom?
worse healthcare?
will it impact society in any way?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Amazing how some of those biblical quotes could be from YODA:)
What's amazing is how many different religions of vastly different ages and how many seers, prophets, saints and notable spiritualistic thinkers have been saying essentially the same thing since.... well, since people began thinking about this stuff.
;)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
one must conclude that God regards homosexual sex as no less a sin than adultery, rape, or theft
Ehhhhh - consenting males happily buggering each other is just as sinful as a male using violence and fear to force himself on a female?
Enjoy your religion, Seagoon, you're welcome to it.
-
Hi All,
The question has been asked again and again, "how will this affect you? Why do you have any interest in whether gays are allowed to marry people of their own sex?" Implicit in this question are two presumptions, one, that if something doesn't directly affect us - we have no stake in it and should stay out, and two that a monumental change in the way we define the primary building block for society won't have affects that extend well beyond the homosexual portion of the population. That's like asking, "why should you care if single mothers can be supported indefinitely on welfare while having child after child out of wedlock - after all, you're not a single mother."
But since you ask, I'll just try to list a few of the reasons why I personally, am concerned with this issue. I have no illusions that these will please or persuade anyone, due to the excessive length of this post, I seriously doubt most will even read it, but I hope that at least people might realize that legalizing Gay Marriage will have far reaching consequences (and this will only touch the surface):
A Few of the Enormous and Inevitable Negative Consequences to Me and my Family of Establishing Gay Marriage as a Civil Right (Pt.1)
Once gay marriage is established as the norm in the USA (and I personally have no doubt it will be established by judicial dictat within the next 10 years) it will become a civil right assured and protected by our constitution. Civil rights are fundamental and far reaching things, and we hold them as particularly sacred in this country. To deny them or attempt to take them away is not only illegal, it is considered heinous. Speaking out against civil rights is a sure ticket to ostracization of the worst sort.
Even before their recent legalization of gay marriage our neighbors to the North in Canada recently passed the following legislation banning "Hate Propaganda" I'll take the liberty of reading the relevant portions of the law:
Hate Propaganda
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
"Identifiable Groups" originally meant any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. And the law has already successfully been used by Muslims against Christians distributing materials they deemed to be anti-Muslim.
Additionally, on April 29 of 2004 the Canadian legislature overwhelmingly passed bill C-250 which adds homosexuality as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
In my role on the candidates committee of our Presbytery, I have already started asking candidates for the Gospel ministry who plan on ministering in Canada, if they are aware they will likely face persecution on this subject. Most of them are, and so far all of them have said they are willing to go to jail rather than compromise the truth of God's word.
Should gay marriage become a civil right in the United States, I have no doubt that hate crimes legislation similar to that which is already the law in Canada will eventually follow in its wake as it is legally normed. While preaching against homosexuality hasn't been a mark of my ministry, I also have no doubt that in expositing and applying the Word of God, particularly in Leviticus and Romans, I will cross the line into what is legally considered "Hate Speech" directed against a protected class, and that this will make it into print or audio. I may escape notice for a while, but indefinitely? That is hardly likely, especially since tolerance for this particular practice is likely to decrease with the passage of time. Like my brothers in Canada, I am fully prepared to go to jail rather than fail in my calling as an Ambassador, as the Apostles put it when they were commanded by the legal authorities in their day "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."
Anecdotally I might comment that I have already experienced this kind of discrimination in the private sector. In the mid-1990s I was working in Washington DC as a contractor in the I.S. Department of a legal publishing firm. The firm's VP of Human Resources was an outspoken homosexual activist, and had done all that he could to create homosexual fiefdoms within the firm. I and many of my co-workers were persona non-grata for using the company "lunch time clubs" policy to start an Evangelical Christian Fellowship and bible study. Our posters were frequently ripped down, materials were destroyed and a generally hostile work atomosphere was created.
A few members of the fellowship attended an open "brown bag lunch" discussion hosted by the company on the subject of homosexuality, I decided not to go, but another member of the fellowship came to find me and told me that a dear and very gentle Christian sister of mine, by the name of Maria had gone to the meeting and had just respectfully said what the bible taught about homsoexuality and was being mercilessly attacked for it, and asked if I would "come stand by her." How could I refuse? I went, I spoke, and at the end of the next business day I was called into my bosses office. He asked me to sit down and explained to me that the VP had just called his boss and asked what my name was and if I worked for her, she said I did, and the VP had simply said "Fire him." My bosses boss had called him to relay the instruction, and my direct boss had asked "why?" She told him that my comments at the "open exchange of ideas" brown bag luncheon had incensed the homosexual community. My boss, then told me that he had quietly replied to his boss, "if you are going to fire Andy because he is a Christian and believes the bible, you better fire me too." This stunned me, as my boss was a minority, had a large family, kids headed for college, and had earned his place as a manager only after many years of hard work for that company. It was a courageous act, and in this case, the company backed down. Had he not taken that stand, I would have been out of work that very same day.
Then there is the area of social and familial decay. The assumption that seems to be blithely assumed here is that Gay marriages will be the mirror image of heterosexual marriages. That simply will not be the case. Even today close to 60% of heterosexual marriages have made it to the 30 year mark, but under 5% of homosexual relationships last for 20 years, and the vast majority are over within 3 years. A 1997 national survey of married couples found that 75% of heterosexual married men had not committed adultery, while even surveys in homosexual magazines indicate that only about 4.5% of homosexual men in "committed relationships" are totally monogamous. This has lead to a movement to substantially redefine the very notion of "commitment" within marriage. If one considers that many of these "marriages" will involve children, one is talking about a childhood where the norm is that their original parents eventually split up and that the child watches as the custodial parent goes from partner to partner to partner. Not only does this practice have a hugely detrimental affect on children, as the number of "partners" increases, so does the liklihood of child-abuse.
I have many anecdotal examples of the long term effects of homosexuality on kids, as well as some inside views of exactly how happy or normal the homosexual lifestyle really is, few of them are the pretty and wonderful sanitized for PBS variety, but the awful reality variety. I'd rather not hash through them here if I don't have to. But I'm not looking forward to the long-term effects of increasing promiscuity across the board in our society. Especially when it comes to women, who are not even vaguely emotionally hard-wired for it.
(cont'd)
- SEAGOON
-
(Pt.2)
There are also many areas where the functions of Chaplains and Pastors pass under public review. Two of these are in counseling and marrying. The way the state can intervene in preventing those who don't give "acceptable counsel" from continuing to do so are scarey to say the least. Ministers are empowered as an agent of the state to officiate over weddings. There is already increasing pressure to forbid churches the ability to "discriminate" against homosexuals in hiring and discussion of the equity of ministers being allowed to refuse to marry certain couples. The day may come when ministers who refuse to officiate over gay weddings are accused of violating civil rights and their state sanction is removed.
Thus it may well be that by a bizzarre twist, the heterosexual marriages that I perform are not recognized as legal by the state, while the gay marriages performed by the justice of the peace are.
The way I see this affecting the America that my children will inherit, especially if they godwilling, continue in the covenant, will not be good. And I am not eager to bequeath a nation substantially more hostile to the faith than even the one I lived in. Still, if the early Church could continue on in Corinth, I have no doubt that the church can survive in the kind of America we are building. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible and after all, the blood of the martyrs has ever been the seed of the church.
But ultimately, why don't I want to see it happen? Because I have never seen blessings follow in the train of sinful behavior, and I quake at the thought of the curses this will bring down upon our heads. That won't resonate with most, but then again, neither did the warnings of Jeremiah to his society, and as I said before, I speak from conviction and personal experience. I honestly don't want to see anyone inherit anything but God's blessings.
- SEAGOON
-
Hey Seagoon,
Torque said something that hasn't really been answered... And I can't think of a better person than you to respond to it.
It was:
"the real hidden agenda behind it all is that religious institutions could be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human-rights codes or hate-speech laws if gay marriage passes."
I'd like to believe that the debate were merely one of values, but ya can't ignore this angle.
What of it?
-
I prefer to look at it as one more step along the slippery slope towards polygamy. :aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hey Seagoon,
Torque said something that hasn't really been answered... And I can't think of a better person than you to respond to it.
It was:
"the real hidden agenda behind it all is that religious institutions could be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human-rights codes or hate-speech laws if gay marriage passes."
I'd like to believe that the debate were merely one of values, but ya can't ignore this angle.
What of it?
Howdy Nash,
In my long-winded ponderous ramble above, I do mention civil rights violations and hate speech laws. I think most evangelical pastors in my circles see it coming, some of us work with missions organizations and denominations in Europe and Canada which are already falling afoul of it.
The really interesting question will be to see how the churches and ministers react to legal challenges. Some may compromise with the state, others will just softpeddle, and others will get in trouble and be fined, lose property, go to jail.
I've never met anyone who opposed it only because they didn't want to go to jail or lose their building, publications, etc. but the American church seems particulary horrified at even the possibility it could happen, some act like this will be the end of the kingdom and as a result are running like mad towards the political process (which is in itself a compromise of mission). Hey, there may be some good that comes from the state being openly hostile to the church, in that it might finally put to death the Constantinian idea of church/state relations that has prevailed with a lot of evangelicals for far too long and that historically the church tends to blossom under persecution and founder in times of ease (mixed metaphor I know, but I'm tired).
- SEAGOON
-
That was a great answer. (really)
In your opinion, is this aspect seen as a real threat?
In other words....
Torque said that the church's stand has very much to do with the ramifications of the legalization of gay marriage on the church itself.
I had no idea.
Maybe you do... So....
How much is this a factor? Is this part of your dialogue? Is this a consideration you've been aware of and are discussing?
-
What if two straight guys decided to get married...but had no intentions of engaging in sexual relations. But did so for loans etc. For any perks marriage may bring...but sit in a home together..completely content...bringing in chicks..partying..and not creating any future taxpayers. No one could challenge there true gayness...or lack thereof.
The real fear is society realizing that theres more to life than raising the next taxpayers..and just enjoying it as they see fit.
-
For one...
No self respectin' guy is gonna pretend to be gay unless he is.
For two...
There are far far worse shams of marriages existing between guys and chicks already.
-
Let me get this right, Seagoon... you object to gay marriage because if gay couples are given legal recognition, it will put a cramp in the style of people who are harassing, shouting obscenities at, and haranguing gays constantly?
This seems at odds with what I've seen you write before, but you said yourself that some of your sermons would become 'hate speech'. Either you're like Fred Phelps (who leads institutions like God Hates studmuffins (http://www.godhatesstudmuffins.com/) and 'Mathew Shepard Rots in Hell') which I kinda doubt, or you're deliberately exaggerating the 'consequences' as part of a strategy against the legalization. The first is really bad, and the second one would be... disappointing.
I hope there's a third option, because I've enjoyed many of your posts in the past, and I find both of the above beneath the stature of the man I thought you were.
-
Nash..I know alot of guys that would fake being gay..if there was money in it. There arent a whole lot of self respectin folk left in the world.
-
Torque's post, again, because it might be the most relevant:
"the real hidden agenda behind it all is that religious institutions could be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human-rights codes or hate-speech laws if gay marriage passes."
-
Seagoon, I, like you still believe there are moral absolutes. I dont think that public opinion, political correctness or even name-calling changes that fact. People don't seem to understand that fact.
When it comes to the religious side of this, people don't understand that God is not influenced by PopCulture. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He completely destroyed 2 cities over this issue. You have covered this aspect far more eloquently and completely than I could so I will move on...
I have no more fear of homosexuals than I do of anyone with any mental illness. In the history of mankind we have had our collective periods of promiscuity then after seeing the results of our excess we have realigned our thinking and actions. A great example of this would be the roaring '20s and early '30s. After the wild times during this era the culture backed off during the '40s and early '50s and we were morally stronger as a nation.
I am always hopeful for the future, I am sure that the destructive nature of this lifestyle will be self-evident in time in spite of the artificially generated cultural programming that takes place in our public schools, television and musical outlets.
For those who believe this is motivated by hate or fear, you are sadly mistaken. It is motivated by the love of our most important and most sacred institutions, the family... The nucleus of our whole society. The things that I said in my previous post about the Man-Boy unions... Some said that i made an unfair connection to this issue... but if we keep widening the definition of "normal" and narrowing what we call "perverse" our society will continue to crumble. Even the Man-Boy types have their national organization in place and puts their cause forth as a civil rights issue as the homosexuals are doing today! See for yourself! (http://www.nambla.org)
So, make whatever comments you like about me, makes no difference in my stance. Too many people are afraid of making a stand for what is right, just because it is RIGHT in this country because someone might call them a name or accuse them of hatred. They try to draw unrealistic parallels to real civil rights issues of the past and that should be an INSULT to those who endured those times. The activist types have thrown so many names around about people so freely that they no longer carry any real meaning or credibility anymore... So... swing away! I am still right - Period.
-
Originally posted by 6GunUSMC
I am still right - Period.
No... I am right, period.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I rest my case.
Your bible isnt mine... We are a free nation. And I will always stand up to stop your bible from controlling this country.
Keep your religious beliefs for your family and your GOD.
I will continue to post replies according to my own personal beliefs. How could I do otherwise? How could you do otherwise? :)
I never said my Bible was yours, not sure where you got that from :)
Because we are a free nation, I respect your views on this threads subject matter.
I read your link, I got a pretty good laugh out of it :)
*edit* I tryed to find another source to back that one up, couldnt find any :)
-
Let me get this right, Seagoon... you object to gay marriage because if gay couples are given legal recognition, it will put a cramp in the style of people who are harassing, shouting obscenities at, and haranguing gays constantly?
No, thats not correct. :) I understood what Seagoon was saying. I dont go around gay bashing and I doubt Seagoon does either. You see, Christ told us not to judge others. I dont judge gay people, it's not my place to do so. Seagoon I am sure understands that also. For the record, I dont approve of gay bashing or bashing anyone.
Seagoon is talking about what happens when his sermons topic is on homosexuality? Will things progress in America to the point that when Seagoon and other pastors preach that homosexuality is wrong, will they be in trouble for commiting a hate crime? It could very well get to that point imo. What happens to freedom of religion then? What happens to freedom of speech then?
You posted a link to God Hates studmuffins. God doesnt hate gay people, he loves each and everyone of us. It's His desire that we would all come to know Him.
It's late, I'm going to bed now. I hope I made sense :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Seagoon is talking about what happens when his sermons topic is on homosexuality? Will things progress in America to the point that when Seagoon and other pastors preach that homosexuality is wrong, will they be in trouble for commiting a hate crime?
Sounds alarmist. The KKK folk still get to talk about all the things they see as wrong with blacks. The white supremacists are still protected when they jibber jabber about Jewish conspiracies, and if you want to talk smack about people with purple noses or whatnot, our constitution still allows this.
So by the looks of it, this is a pretty ridiculous argument that is not supported by the facts. It looks, walks, and quacks like a specious attempt to fear monger to support an increasingly unstable argument.
It seems like 6gunusmc might be the most honest detractor here, I think he's the only guy that said essentially "I don't want this because I don't like the gays". It might not be a really great argument that'll win any court cases, but I suspect that it represents common sentiment in the anti-gay marriage crowd more accurately then some of the other flowery rhetoric.
-
Originally posted by 6GunUSMC
Seagoon, I, like you still believe there are moral absolutes. I dont think that public opinion, political correctness or even name-calling changes that fact. People don't seem to understand that fact.
Question: 50 years ago, it was 'accepted' that interracial marriage was morally wrong. Preachers preached it, most people agreed with it.
Questions:
1. Was that true then?
2. Is it true now?
3. If the answer to #1 is 'no', then how we speak with such conviction as to the moral status of gay marriage now?
-
Seagoon, you do make an awful lot of worst-case scenarios trying to come up with some sort reasonably non-religious argument against homosexual marriage.
With "relationship lifespan" your facts aren't sourced, which is important to see the degree of neutrality behind the data. Data can be, and regularly is, created to meet certain ends. I can, within 5 minutes of searching throw this back:
MYTH #8: Gay, lesbians, and bisexual people cannot and do not want long-term relationships.
The stereotype is of the lonely gay man or woman drifting from one sexual liaison to another, never satisfied and never committed.
Studies have shown that between 40-60% of gay men are in steady relationships. These figures are probably higher because men in long term relationships tend to be older and less likely to go to bars, where these statistics were recorded.
Between 45-80% of lesbians are in steady relationships. In most studies, the proportion of lesbians in an on-going relationship was close to 75%.
It is hard to judge how long these partnerships last given the lack of marriage records. The few studies on older lesbians and gay men have shown that relationships lasting longer than 20 years are common.
Another study compared the rate of break-up between lesbian, gay, and co-habitating and married heterosexual couples over an 18 month period. For all couples who had been together for more than 10 years the rate of break-up was:
* 6% for lesbians,
* 4% for gay men,
* 4% for married couples.
For couples together for less than 2 years, only 1 in 5 relationships ended over the 18-month period. Overall the difference in break-up rates between homosexual and heterosexual couples is almost insignificant.
In general, a pattern of continuity and stability was seen in all the relationships.
http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/information/queerhealth/myths/
Are they playing tricks with data? Maybe. But who cares? It's immaterial. It sounds like a desire to regulate marriage, heterosexual included I would assume at some point, to achieve an optimal level of societal correctness. I personally don't like strangers or the government deciding too specifically and minutely what is best for my marriage beyond what my wife and I decide is best for the needs of the family. Do you believe there needs to be stronger controls placed on heterosexual marriage?
Your fears about persecution at the pulpit? Very hard to see. Religion is not a governmental/public entity or a business or a public entity. I just don't see it. I would certainly protest on your side should such an enormous change in our way of government come to pass. But again, you base a current action that has no direct impact on your life on a future worst case scenario of what might become. And persecution at the office? I don't doubt your story. But you do seem to encounter a lot of "activist" gay people. How are the activist? Are they in your face all the time or just not ashamed to occasionally describe a weekend with his/or partner during normal lunch hour social discussions? I could also ask, how activist were you in promoting your religious beliefs at work?Why was that meeting on homosexuality being called?
As stated, I have worked with homosexuals. I also had a fundamentalist Christian work for me and I worked for a Jehova's Witness. Guess what? The Homosexuals weren't the activists. With my subordinate, we were in a laid back office, and neither I or the others cared all that much. The bible tracts, occasional preaching, the picture of the fetus on her cubical wall -- generally ignored. But she was clearly activist. I was a bit more worried about the Jehova's Witness, since he was my boss, but fortunately he knew that he could cross a harassment line and was very careful in getting your permission to proceed. I gave him that permission, out of curiosity :) Sill, an activist looking to convert. Then there was the Amway guy… Your employment situation sounds like over reacting on management's part. It's also ironic that you fail to appreciate that there are plenty of people who would refuse to hire, or quickly fire a homosexual if they could easily get away with it. Or a black, or woman, or any other sub group of less favored class.
The way I see this affecting the America that my children will inherit, especially if they godwilling, continue in the covenant, will not be good. And I am not eager to bequeath a nation substantially more hostile to the faith than even the one I lived in. Still, if the early Church could continue on in Corinth, I have no doubt that the church can survive in the kind of America we are building. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible and after all, the blood of the martyrs has ever been the seed of the church.
You see all this hostility to the majority Christian religion. But most of the "oppression" I see is some judge being put in his place for putting a two-ton stature of the 10 commandments in a public hall of justice and daring those who disagree with preeminent Christianity to take it away. I don't mind that type of oppression, though it equally has to be watched over for overreaction and excess. Christianity is a strong majority today, and into the future. The victim angle is a powerful one, but it rings hollow to me.
But ultimately, why don't I want to see it happen? Because I have never seen blessings follow in the train of sinful behavior, and I quake at the thought of the curses this will bring down upon our heads. That won't resonate with most, but then again, neither did the warnings of Jeremiah to his society, and as I said before, I speak from conviction and personal experience. I honestly don't want to see anyone inherit anything but God's blessings.
That's refreshing. Why even bother with all the complications, philosophy and extremist projections that make it palatable in some secular way.
Charon
BTW everybody, Have a great holiday weekend. May the weather be fine, the relaxation deep and the amusements merry as we enjoy celebrating America.
-
The promoting and passing of laws to protect and support the unnatural and perverse is not our county`s finest hour IMHO.
Leaving everything else aside for a moment, this even goes against the natural laws of nature.
What`s even worse, IMO, is the naive being swept up in support something as perverted and unnatural as this under the banner of "rights".
Serial killers have their "rights" taken away. Child molestors have their "rights" taken away.
Laws are to protect, but most importantly they are to punish and guard against deviation of the unnatural and unaccepatable, not to protect the perverse, unnatural and deviates.
My two cents.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The promoting and passing of laws to protect and support the unnatural and perverse is not our county`s finest hour IMHO.
As unnatural and perverse as, say, racial intermarriage? That's the type of phrases used to describe it 50 years ago.
This is a continuing story in this argument, the basis for discrimination isn't based on science, evidence, or experience. It's not 'gay marriage will cause a 24% increase in crime because of X,Y and Z' or 'homosexuals are 73% more likely to hurt XYZ when given this right based on this study in country L where it is legal', it's based on 'because I say so, and I say it's yucky'.
-
Told ya... these guys are trying to put this on the same par with a racial issue. It will never fly. Homosexuality is conduct-based the same as child molestation, robbery, murder, etc.
-
6Gun,
Religion is conduct-based, yet the religious types enjoy all sorts of tax-exempt status and special dispensation. I don't see legions of homosexuals banding together to demand that these 'special rights' are taken away from the churches.
Funny that.
I also enjoy how you say 'it'll never fly' when I draw the obvious parallel between racism and this discrimination, with the suggestion that it's ridiculous. You then immediately follow up with an attempt to equate the gays with child molesting, robbery, murder, etc. Mr Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.
-
I still dont buy into it... Your comparison is invalid.
-
Originally posted by 6GunUSMC
I still dont buy into it... Your comparison is invalid.
Kindly back up your statement or make a case of some sort.
"Is so!" isn't really as effective a tactic as you may have been led to believe. That's why it's rarely by presidential candidates during the debates.
'ppreciate it.
-
Originally posted by 6GunUSMC
Homosexuality is conduct-based the same as child molestation, robbery, murder, etc.
lol, and your comparison is? Now I know why there are so many infomercials
-
What I've yet to see explained here is why any "couple" that is "married" should get a better deal from the government or their employer than the same two individuals got before they "married" or "formed a civil union".
In short, I think it's all backwards.
To illustrate:
Let's say two individuals work for the same company at the exact same job/same pay and have the same health care program with the exact same benefits and coverage.
One of these individuals then marries. This individual gets health care coverage for his wife at significant expense to the company.
The other individual gets nothing new.
Why is this?
And why would we not expect homosexual couples to want the same "good deal" for their "civil union"?
I mean, it's a clear windfall. Who WOULDN'T want that deal?
Now, imagine that "marriages" or "civil unions" brought no "windfalls" from the government or employers. Would it be such a big issue?
-
Hi All,
Replies to Chairboy:
Respectfully, the idea that hate speech laws will be used against Christians who preach or write in opposition to Christianity is clearly not "a ridiculous argument that is not supported by the facts" I have already aluded to the anti-hate speech law in Canada which has been successfully used to muzzle Christians in the public arena.
For instance, recently a Canadian Christian, Dr. Chris Kempling, who is counselor at a Canadian high school was convicted of "Conduct Unbecoming" of a teacher and suspended from his job. His crime? He wrote a freelance column and some editorials questioning the wisdom of the continued promotion of the Homosexual agenda and defending traditional marriage. The actual court documents are located here (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/05/03/2005BCCA0327.htm)
Additionally, Swedens hate speech laws were successfully used to prosecute and convict a Pentecostal Pastor, Ake Green, the following report ran in Christianity Today:
No Free Speech in Preaching
Swedish pastor sentenced to jail for blasting homosexuality.
By Lars Grip, ENI, in Stockholm 08/09/2004
A Swedish court sentenced a Pentecostal pastor to one month in prison after finding him guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon. The case was the first trial test of the national law against incitement as applied to speech about homosexuals.
Last year during a sermon delivered in the east coast town of Borgholm, Ake Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He called homosexuals "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God."
During proceedings, the public prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, played a tape recording from the sermon. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, he justified the arrest by saying, "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but [the sermon] is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
In his defense, the pastor said he merely wanted to make clear the biblical view on homosexuality, not to express disrespect.
Green's lawyer pointed to the contradiction between religious freedom and freedom of speech on the one hand, and the rights of homosexuals to be protected against discrimination on the other. A verdict of guilty would violate the pastor's right to preach about his beliefs, the lawyer said. Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, said religious freedom is never a reason to offend people. "Therefore," he told journalists, "I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion."
Yngvesson asked the court to impose a prison sentence on the pastor. Green is expected to appeal.
[/b]
Green won his appeal but now according to AP the Swedish Supreme court is examining the case -
(AP) - STOCKHOLM, Sweden-Sweden's Supreme Court said Monday it will review the acquittal of a Pentecostal pastor who denounced homosexuals as "a deep cancer" during a sermon in his church.
An appeals court in February threw out a hate crimes conviction against the priest, Ake Green, saying it was not illegal to offer a personal interpretation of the Bible and urge others to follow it.Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, saying Green's comments amounted to hate speech.
Keep in mind that these are just the initial salvos at a time when the norming of Homosexuality is still underway, once that process is well established, men like Green will be considered to be exactly like members of the Klan and then eventually no better than the members of the Hutu INTERHAMWE militia.
Here in the USA, a Pastor Chuck McIlhenny of the OPC (a denomination closely allied with my own) and his family and congregation have gone through horrific experiences because he ministers in San Francisco and has preached against Homosexuality. Robert Knight, for instance, noted in sworn testimony before the US Senate:
"In San Francisco in 1993, Pastor Chuck McIlhenny, whose home had been firebombed in 1990, called the city hate crimes unit when homosexual activists attacked a church. He was told that the Christians had their point of view, and the homosexual activists had theirs, and that they "cancel each other out." Despite the destruction of property, physical assault of parishioners, and the disruption of a worship service, the police would not come to their aid. Apparently, some hate-crime victims are more important than others. "
Check out his website if you suspect this man is a crazed hatemonger: SFOPC (http://www.sfopc.org/index.php)
Additionally Chairboy, I'm saddened to see that you believe that the opponents of gay marriage are simply motivated by an "I don't want this because I don't like the gays". and that this "represents common sentiment in the anti-gay marriage crowd more accurately then some of the other flowery rhetoric." Would you appreciate it much if I turned that specious ad-hominem around and said "I strongly suspect that the defenders of same sex marriage here are doing this because they really, really like gays - if you get my meaning." I don't do that because I cannot examine your heart, so I have no way of exactly accurately assessing your motivations, all I can do is respond to your statements, all I would ask is that you grant me the same courtesy. As it happens, I am not opposed to same sex marriage because "I don't like the gays" I oppose it because my conscience is captive to the Word of God, and in preaching and proclaiming that word, my commission only extends to teaching what Christ has commanded in the word, and not my own opinions. Therefore I have no right to call Evil what the Apostles called Good or to call Good what the word Calls Wicked.
Regarding your question about whether my sermons that touch on Romans 1:18-32 would be considered hate speech? They certainly would according to the provisions of the laws of both Sweden and Canada, in fact in this thread I have been guilty of precisely what the Swedish prosecutor called "hate speech" and condemned Ake Green, to quote: "Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."
Well this has run on too long already, I'll reply to some of the other posts in a bit...
-SEAGOON
-
Seems inevitable to me that sooner or later the "hate speech" laws are going to bump up against the First Amendment at the SCOTUS level.
It will be interesting.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Religion is conduct-based, yet the religious types enjoy all sorts of tax-exempt status and special dispensation. I don't see legions of homosexuals banding together to demand that these 'special rights' are taken away from the churches.
To the contrary Chairboy, plenty of examples exist of attempts to revoke the tax exempt status of parachurch groups in the US, but the recent brouhaha in Canada on precisely this subject has been particularly egregious:
Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions;
Rightly so, gay-rights group says
Alex Hutchinson
The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.
"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind http://www.equalmarriage.ca.
"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
Several Liberal backbenchers have been pressuring Prime Minister Paul Martin to amend the controversial gay-marriage bill, which is now before the House, to protect the tax status of churches that refuse to perform such marriages.
Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.
"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.
But the role of the Catholic Church in public debate is legitimate and legal, according to Bede Hubbard, the associate secretary general of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Right from the very beginning, the representatives of the government have called on Canadians to express their opinions," he said. "And certainly, Canadian churches are among Canadian citizens."
Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws --with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Mr. Broder said.
"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."
Churches rely heavily on their charitable status to encourage more frequent and more generous donations, according to Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
"The loss the charitable tax status would really affect the ability of these ministries to carry out their functions," she said. "That includes a lot of things that are beneficial to society, like homeless ministries, outreach to the poor, and international development."
As a result, the Evangelical Fellowship favours an amendment to the bill guaranteeing that charitable status will not be challenged-- even though the group opposes the bill as a whole.
"If they're going to redefine marriage anyway, we would like to see these kinds of amendments in the bill," Ms. Buckingham said.
Bonnie Greene, a retired United Church official who specialized in tax issues, said the charitable status of churches is not under any immediate threat.
However, the regulations governing charities are greatly in need of updating, she said.
"In Canadian law, the definition of charitable activity is over 400 years old, based on a legal case in England," Ms. Greene said. "This is not good for democracy in Canada."
For Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Varnell, who run the website http://www.equalmarriage.ca, the distinction between advocacy and partisan politics is artificial.
"Our website is completely self-funded," Mr. Bourassa said.
"We are not a charity, because fighting for our Charter of Rights is considered by the government to be advocacy. What is the difference between fighting for equality and fighting against equality? There's none." Currently, groups promoting human rights, the environment and peace are not considered charities. The rules should be changed to reflect the needs of civil society -- needs that were not present 400 years ago, Ms. Greene said.
Any new rules will need to keep faith and politics separate to satisfy Mr. Bourassa, who is a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto.
"During the last election, my church removed all linkages to political non-charitable groups that were fighting for same-sex marriage from their website because of the political implications and the tax implications," Mr. Bourassa said.
And he intends to make other churches follow the same path.
"There are charitable activities that are legitimate within faith communities," he said.
"Political activities are not charitable activities."
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
Ok, now the logical next step would see m to be to tell me that my taking an ethical stand opposing same sex marriages is in fact a political stand, and that refusing to conduct them should they become the law of the end should indeed be reason for ending our church's tax exempt status (I have no personal tax exemption) because we are not equally serving all members of the community regardless of sexual preference or religious belief. This would incidentally effectively kill two birds with one stone, as being forced to pay taxes on our tithes and offerings would close our doors in one or two tax seasons.
- SEAGOON
-
Told ya... these guys are trying to put this on the same par with a racial issue. It will never fly. Homosexuality is conduct-based the same as child molestation, robbery, murder, etc.
When genetic research was just getting started they used a sample of prison inmates for thier data
They thought from this sample that the average human had less than 46 chromosomes
no, just the average prison inmate....
so how much of what you say is based on genetics? ... just like being Black? .. or Gay? Or a WASP?
_____________________________ ___
edit:
Not what I was talking about really, but illustrates the point well.....
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:YXgIB5C8tsoJ:www.alumni.ca/~bernd3a/resources/XYYAnthonyBerndtVSF.ppt+chromosomes+human+46+average+less+prison&hl=en
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
As unnatural and perverse as, say, racial intermarriage? That's the type of phrases used to describe it 50 years ago.
not really sure where you came up with that little gem of a comparison. One has nothing to do with the other. Way off base.
No, as unnatural and perverse as child molestation, serial murders.......or dining on dog poop, to go to extremes.
Want to pass some laws making these things all fine and dandy too?
Laws are viewed and used to not only regulate and enforce. They are also a standard by which our children become accustomed to what is acceptable, normal and natural.
I for one do not wish for my grandkids to be in a society that supports, with laws, perverse, disgusting and deviate acts.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I have already aluded to the anti-hate speech law in Canada which has been successfully used to muzzle Christians in the public arena.
Seagoon, have you read the Canadian hate crime legislation? It protects people of all sexual orientations from calls for genocide based on their sexual orientations. If anyone called for the death of all heterosexuals they would be just as liable or muzzled if someone called for the death of all homosexuals. It ceratinly isn't the case of gays getting any special rights or protections. If Christians are being disportionately muzzle based on this legislation, maybe they stop calling for extermination of gays. For the record, I disagree with the hate crime legislation, but at least it is even handed in the supression of our free speech.
Text of the law can be found below.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42972.html
For instance, recently a Canadian Christian, Dr. Chris Kempling, who is counselor at a Canadian high school was convicted of "Conduct Unbecoming" of a teacher and suspended from his job. His crime? He wrote a freelance column and some editorials questioning the wisdom of the continued promotion of the Homosexual agenda and defending traditional marriage. The actual court documents are located here (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/05/03/2005BCCA0327.htm)
I don't find any mention of our hate crime legislation in the document you provide, so I don't see how this is a "for instance" vis a vis our hate law.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Question: 50 years ago, it was 'accepted' that interracial marriage was morally wrong. Preachers preached it, most people agreed with it.
Questions:
1. Was that true then?
2. Is it true now?
3. If the answer to #1 is 'no', then how we speak with such conviction as to the moral status of gay marriage now?
I have never seen anything in the Bible that prohibits interracial marriage. There are multiple passages that speak against homosexuality.
*edit* It is my belief that pastors should only teach from the Bible itself, if the Bible doesnt teach it then pastors shouldnt either.
-
Hi Charon,
Originally posted by Charon
Seagoon, you do make an awful lot of worst-case scenarios trying to come up with some sort reasonably non-religious argument against homosexual marriage.
Not really, I'm simply reading what is going on in Europe and Canada, speaking with pastors and missionaries in those areas and applying the lessons to our own society. If you believe that what is currently happening throughout the Western nations cannot and will not happen it the USA, then I must respectfully disagree.
With "relationship lifespan" your facts aren't sourced, which is important to see the degree of neutrality behind the data.
Yeah I know the old saying "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". I tend to favor government, medical community, or pro-homosexual sources of stats in my writing. If you want a list of some the sources I used they are:
* Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001)
* Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
* 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census (http://www.glcensus.org)
* Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 2004)
In my own reading on current homosexual political theory (I end up reading this along with essays on homosexual theology which it tends to be closely tied with) I have found that the majority of gay scholars and writers consider monogamy to be a heterosexual construct that should not be a required part of marriage. In fact, there seems to be an attitude of don't patronize us with bits and pieces of your worldview.
For instance, Gay Australian Journalist Steve Dow writes:
"Same sex couples would bring that favourite 90s word to the marriage mix: diversity. Some of us would be monogamous, and some of us would have open relationships. And that scares the hell out of the likes of church leaders. But it would, wouldn’t it? Churches are not exactly repositories of honesty, are they? Perhaps we could inject a dose of much-needed honesty into the institution of marriage: that commitment is not always synonymous with exclusivity. Nice ideal if you can make it work. Many gay people can be monogamous but, regardless of whether they are, this is not an argument for denying anyone access to marriage"
And persecution at the office? I don't doubt your story. But you do seem to encounter a lot of "activist" gay people. How are the activist? Are they in your face all the time or just not ashamed to occasionally describe a weekend with his/or partner during normal lunch hour social discussions? I could also ask, how activist were you in promoting your religious beliefs at work?Why was that meeting on homosexuality being called?
The VP was an activist in that he actively sought to hire homosexual department managers who in turn sought to hire homosexual workers. This was considered a good "affirmative action" policy and the company was proud of it. The company was also way ahead of the curve in offering health benefits to domestic partners, in bringing in speakers from the gay community to conduct workshops on how to write about homosexual legal and political issues and so on. If that doesn't constitute "activism," I am not sure what does.
The luncheon was part of a sponsored company program called "Brown Bag Diversity Luncheons" where "diversity" issues were supposed to be openly discussed to promote greater understanding. The meeting apparently began with a number of white liberal managers spouting platitudes about gay friends and relatives and how they couldn't even understand a mentality that would think this was wrong, then a number of homosexuals spoke, one noting that tolerance was not the issue, equal rights was and equated it to the civil rights movement of the 60s. This irritated a black worker who thought that upper class white gays in management equating their "struggle" with that of his was going way too far (this began to put a damper on the proceedings) then my friend Maria (who was a little Hispanic lady and married to a black man) respectfully noted that she did not think it was a civil rights issue either and read a few passages from the bible indicating that this was a choice and that it was a wrong choice. At that point all hell broke loose with people shaking fingers at her, lambasting her, calling her a nazi, a bigot, and no different from those who lynched in prior years. That was when another sister who was crying because she loved Maria dearly ran to my cubicle to get me. I simply noted that Maria was right, that every theological giant of the faith had affirmed that, that this wasn't a "hate" issue and so on. Maria was union and effectively untouchable, I was a contract worker and quite expendable.
How activist was I in promoting my beliefs? We held meetings during the official "club time" on Wednesday in one of the lunch rooms at work. We did open bible studies, discussed theological topics, watched Christian history videos and invited anyone who wanted to, to attend. Aside from that, I answered questions from non-Christians that arose because people knew of my connection with the fellowship. If you view that as being an activist, then I guess I was.
- SEAGOON
-
Manedew, you have referred to genetics several times in this thread. This article talks about several studies done on the *homosexual gene*. There are multiple reference links at the end of the article.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.
So far there is evidence that there *may* be a homosexual gene, but that is far from being a scientific fact at this point in time. Just because mainstream media has jumped all over these studies and declared them to be Truth does not make it so.
-
So far there is evidence that there *may* be a homosexual gene, but that is far from being a scientific fact at this point in time. Just because mainstream media has jumped all over these studies and declared them to be Truth does not make it so.
I asked questions actually....
and how can you be so sure about other things you can't prove ..... ?
I'm showing how thin thier arguments are
read the quote I was responding too .... what a joke statement IMHO
You can't answer tho's questions..... so how are you in a postion to say anything?
-
I still think the best option is civil unions performed by the government with no religious overtones at all. Gay couples and strictly secular straight couples could have a union recognized by the state with all the perks that a "normal" married couples gets.
And churches could continue to marry who they see fit to marry in religious ceremonies.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
This is written by a student not a recognised expert on the subject.
Religion has no place in our government. That doesnt mean you cant have your faith for yourself. It means keep your faith off my plate.
-
Originally posted by Silat
This is written by a student not a recognised expert on the subject.
Religion has no place in our government. .
To use a play on words......To hell it doesn`t.
Our very basis, what this country stands for and our laws all originated and included religion.
Without it our country would be hopelessly adrift.
Them`s da facts Jim, like it or not. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Manedew, you have referred to genetics several times in this thread. This article talks about several studies done on the *homosexual gene*. There are multiple reference links at the end of the article.
Hehe. If there ever was a mindless joke that has been used to fit every occasion when someone or groups of people have a serious problem and have no other excuse for it , it would be the genetic makeup card.
It has been used for alcholism, sex addiction, drug addiction, child abuse, wife beating, serial killings, gambling addiction........hell, everything that ever needed an excuse. Anytime there is no reasonable or acceptable excuse this is fallen back on. It`s pure BS.
" He/she was geneticaly prone to .
The only time I have seen something that could be explained away or made clear when it came to genes was Bill Clinton.
He should have kept his in his jeans (genes). :)
-
Linkage:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
And
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
To use a play on words......To hell it doesn`t.
Our very basis, what this country stands for and our laws all originated and included religion.
Without it our country would be hopelessly adrift.
Them`s da facts Jim, like it or not. :)
Here we go again,
First off lets remember where are system of laws really comes from. It wasnt the bible.
The reason that Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the basis of our legal system is that is what they have always heard from their pulpits and they refuse to look it up for themselves.
If they would look it up, they would find that our Constitution and our tri-partite system of government is based on the legal philosophy of the French aristocrat, the Baron de Montesquieu (as interpreted by James Madison), and on English Common law going back to the Magna Carta.
__________________
-
Seagoon,
I agree with Charon that your worries seem a bit like hand-wringing.
I have a suggestion should same-sex marriages ever become legal and you do not wish to perform those ceremonies: make it a requirement that ceremonies are only performed for members of your church. Then as a tenet of your church you can refuse or terminate membership to any person who fails to follow those tenets. Obviously, a ban on homosexuality is a tenet of your church. Therefore they cannot become members until they give up homosexuality.
Note that many churches require baptism in the church in order to participate in certain ceremonies, including marriages. And this is perfectly legal. And so is excommunication from a church if a member is found to be violating the church tenets.
BTW, relating to Canada's hate crime statute...Thrawn is correct. I hope you are not preaching or promoting violence to counter what you perceive as homosexual activism (makes me wonder WWJD?).
Also, I read the finding for the case you cited with the teacher. Thrawn is correct, it was not relating to the hate crime statute. However, in reading the finding it seems the teacher and his counsel made a lot of mistakes. He didn't show to the first hearing to defend himself. Then he tried to turn the punishment phase into a trial of facts (no-no). In his appeal on the grounds that his religious freedoms were being infringed, his counsel did not submit anything to show what is religion was!
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
They get the same benefits, which in essence makes it the same.
That's a weak argument since it's based on your personnal opinion on the subject which isn't any better then anyone else's.
I don't like religious conservatives so I want my government to make their religions illegal. :rolleyes:
Do you want your government to makes laws this way ?
If you can't give me a logical reason why they should not get the same benefits as you, you got no argument.
So bring it. :D
Oh, they ARE married?! Can they conceive a child? Sit down sir.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Oh, they ARE married?! Can they conceive a child?
Karaya
Tell me, since you seem to have missed this part of the discussion...
Are you saying that a sterile or barren male/female couple should not be allowed to get married?
-
adoption? anyone?
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Silat
Its none of your business:)
Okie doke. I can live with that. Was just trying to clear something up in my mind.
Are you into beastiality?:)
Well.........only the occasinal hot dog. :)
And yes I want all Americans to have absolute equal treatment under the law dont you?
When they are violating the very basis and laws of nature itself then I don`t consider a law and or laws to promote and protect such activity valid. So, I would have to answer no. Like isaid earlier....Serial killers have their "rights" taken away. Child molestors have their "rights" taken away. I`m certainly not big into promoting giving them or gays "rights", if that is what you prefer to call it.
There are lots of things others do that I dont agree with but as long as it doesnt touch me then that is their business. Now why do you spend time thinking about homosexuals and what they are doing?
When it is put up as a law and or laws that effect what future generations would be taught, shown approval of and effects the very standards of which will be acceptable in the country I live in and am very proud of, I have no other alternative than to think about homosexuals and what they are doing. I consider it my obligation.
My daughters are grown and I did teach them that all have the same rights to happiness under the law. I also taught them that religion has no place in Government. And Government has no place in religion.
Religion has always been and will continue to be a part of our government. It`s not a machine. It consists of living, breathing human beings.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess. I don`t see you budging from your views on this and I damn sure have no intnetions of budging on mine. :)
-
It's fundamentally impossible to violate the laws of nature.
Do you understand this?
Dead explained it allready in this thread better than I can.
And even if by some weird intersection of alternate universes it was unatural. You or I don't have the right to tell other consenting adults what they can and can't do.
Some people don't like big menacing bugs and spiders, because they remind them of the alien within.
For any straight person there is a certain amount of uncomfortable tension experienced when being around gays. For some people it's too much to deal with so they repress it.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Some people don't like big menacing bugs and spiders, because they remind them of the alien within.
:lol
Time for your nap.
-
Originally posted by Silat
This is written by a student not a recognised expert on the subject.
Religion has no place in our government. That doesnt mean you cant have your faith for yourself. It means keep your faith off my plate.
Whats the big deal if it was written by a student? All of his references are at the bottom of the page.
Keep my faith off your plate? I didn't put it there, it's just in the same room with ya right now :)
-
The reason that Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the basis of our legal system is that is what they have always heard from their pulpits and they refuse to look it up for themselves.
I dont recall ever hearing that from the pulpit. Could be I just dont remember..../shrug
-
Manedew,
I just posted that link because you brought up genetics several times. It wasn't an attempt to answer your questions because science doesnt even have the answers to the question of a homosexual gene yet. They have some evidence and theories right now but thats it.
To be honest, some of your questions, I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry :(
Some people don't like big menacing bugs and spiders, because they remind them of the alien within.
Not me Suave, all objections I have to gay marriage are based on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. No aliens within over here ;)
-
And churches could continue to marry who they see fit to marry in religious ceremonies.
They are free to do that in Canada now. That's why this law is great, it does not force anyone's view on others. Christians are free to not perform gay marriages if they do not want to.
This law is a perfect example of Freedom of Worship.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
They are free to do that in Canada now. That's why this law is great, it does not force anyone's view on others. Christians are free to not perform gay marriages if they do not want to.
This law is a perfect example of Freedom of Worship.
IN the US the rightwing Christians want to force their anti gay beliefs on all of us.
-
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".
-
Holden you hit the proverbial nail on the head on this one. Change is being pushed on us by gay rights activists, not the other way around.
Silat where does your intense hatred of Christians come from? You generally refer to Christians as *Christian Fundamentalists* or *right wing Christians*. Can we drop the labels please?
-
Originally posted by Silat
IN the US the rightwing Christians want to force their anti gay beliefs on all of us.
:D
I don`t exactly know who the "rightwing Christians ' are, but if they are anti gay, then I`m all for them.
I beleive you are about 180 out on this one.
The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!
-
Originally posted by Silat
IN the US the rightwing Christians want to force their anti gay beliefs on all of us.
There must be a lot of right wing Christians, then, since hetero marriage proposals have been voted in with overwhelming victories in every single state they've been brought to the voters.
-
In New York last week there was a Billy Graham Crusade and a Gay Rights Parade...
Which one wanted to indoctrinate the attendees to their lifestyle?
-
Which one forced people to attend?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
:D
I don`t exactly know who the "rightwing Christians ' are, but if they are anti gay, then I`m all for them.
I beleive you are about 180 out on this one.
The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!
Be nice Jackal :)
-
Which one wanted to indoctrinate the attendees to their lifestyle?
My guess (just offhand lol) would be the Billy Graham Crusade. Although I would not use the word indoctrinate. At those crusades there is a message presented and at the end an invitation is extended to those who feel compelled to become a believer.
Which one forced people to attend?
I would say niether, you attend a gay rights parade by choice, and those who attended Billy Graham's crusade also attended by choice, including those who converted to Christianity.
-
Exactly.
And if you attend by choice........ it's hard to call it indoctrination isn't it?
-
I don't see that choice is pertinent
indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
-
But it's the indoctrinee who chooses to accept the teachings of the doctrine. If the indoctrinator indoctrinates the indoctranee by force, that's one thing. But if the indocranee willingly accepts the doctrine of the indoctrinator, and even overtly asks for the indoctronation by going to the arrangeed indoctrination site , then perhaps it is not indoctrination at all. Unless prescribed by a doctor.
-
The Doctor is in.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
There must be a lot of right wing Christians, then, since hetero marriage proposals have been voted in with overwhelming victories in every single state they've been brought to the voters.
It is not about what the MAJORITY wants. Its about equal freedoms for all Americans.
If you guys dont see that then I weep for America.
-
Originally posted by Silat
It is not about what the MAJORITY wants. Its about equal freedoms for all Americans.
If you guys dont see that then I weep for America.
No, it's about equal RIGHTS for all Americans.
If you guys don't see that then I weep for all America.
-
Hi Crowmaw:
Originally posted by crowMAW
BTW, relating to Canada's hate crime statute...Thrawn is correct. I hope you are not preaching or promoting violence to counter what you perceive as homosexual activism (makes me wonder WWJD?).
Crow,
In a quick review of my sermons, I can only find one where I responded directly to the subject of gay marriage. Rather than defending myself on the issue, I'll simply print the application portion of the sermon covering what I "preached and promoted" to counter homosexual activism here, and let you decide whether you think this is the promotion of violence. It would however still land me in trouble if preached in Sweden.
[I apologize in advance for the grammar and the simple conversational rather than written style - these are my spoken sermon notes which are only the shell of my actual sermon, I've added back some things that I recall saying extempore to make the sentences readable. My advice is that everyone not interested stop reading here as the following is not likely to be popular with anyone here...]
Portion of Sermon Notes (9/30/2004)
"III) The way the church should respond to the legalization of Gay Marriage
Now how should you, the church, the body of Christ, respond to this crisis in the culture? Should the church create and endorse "centers for reclaiming America" and vigorously pursue a legislative agenda? Should we in essence become the flip-side of the liberal church and while they pursue a liberal political agenda, we strive for a conservative one?
Now I know what I am about to say is going to be deeply unpopular in certain circles, but it is my conviction that this approach is simply not biblical. The church was not commissioned to be a wing of any political party and to make it such is go against the great commission and fall into the great failing of becoming Christianity And… Christianity and anything else, as C.S. Lewis rightly pointed out, is not Christianity.
I mean think of it, to listen to those who do believe the church should be pursuing a legislative agenda you would expect to find Paul's Epistle to Caesar somewhere in the New Testament documents, containing his complaints about the immoral practices of the Roman Culture and demanding legislative action. You could add to that, the epistle of the Corinthian Church to the city counsel, and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Lawyers.
But what instead did the church do? They understood that their commission was to preach the Gospel, to make and baptize disciples of all the nations, and to teach those disciples to observe Christ's commands. They understood that the Christian faith was not tied to any one culture or nation, but that rather they were a pilgrim people and that ultimately their citizenship was above:
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, (Phil. 3:20)
They also understood that "the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."
And that therefore our agenda should be to advance the gospel, not to vainly attempt to subdue men who are by nature rebels, by the word of God.
Our route-map in these matters is actually plotted out for us in Paul's words to the Corinthian church that we read in the beginning (1 Cor 5:1-13).
The city of Corinth, was famous for its sexual immorality, they not only had widespread homosexuality but also institutionalized temple prostitution. Sexual immorality was the norm, and the verb to "Corinthianize" actually became a by-word in the empire for becoming depraved. The thing is though, that in the midst of this Paul is shocked that there is sexual immorality in the church. Why is that? Because he understood, as I think we have forgotten, that the church and the world are fundamentally different and for the most part opposing institutions.
In one sense, it didn't matter what the culture of Corinth was doing, the church must remain true to the word of God, regardless. They must not become the compromising church, but even though all around is dark still remain "the light of the world. A city set on a hill that cannot be hidden." To paraphrase Christ's words to his followers in Matt. 5:14.
Paul at several points in 1 Cor. 5 assumes that those outside the church will be immoral, that is the nature of the world, in order to escape immorality altogether one would as he says in verse 10 go out of the world – and he is not there endorsing the Amish approach. The church is called to be in but not of the world. But Paul condemns them in particular for actually acting worse than the common morals of the Corinthians in that even the fallen Corinthian worldlings were ashamed of incest such as had been reported in the church!
Therefore he counsels them as a people who have been called out of the world, to purge out the leven and return this sinner to the place that by his actions he shows he belongs – the world, there to be taught repentance, and godwilling to be restored to fellowship.
This is the case always and everywhere, Paul addresses the body of Christ as a people separated from the world. The idea of a "Christian Nation" is in essence an oxymoron. The church is composed of people of every race and tongue. Since the dissolution of Israel there has never been a covenanted nation where the boundaries of church and state where the same, and we make a serious mistake when the church attempts to take over the proper duties of the civil magistrate and vice versa, they are separate spheres called to separate functions.
Now I know that those who do uphold the idea of "Christian America" routinely quote God's words to Solomon at the founding of the temple in Jerusalem: 2 Chr 7:14 "if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
But who is this addressed to? The world, NO the church! This is addressed to the people of God, NOT AMERICA or any other nation since the dissolution of Israel. Is America called by God's name? No! It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that America will go the way of every worldly empire – especially given our increasing willingness to ignore and go against the 1st use of the Moral Law, the USUS POLITICUS informing our own civil laws. But you know that the kingdom of God will continue on forever. Regardless of what happens to the nation of America, the church will still be here on earth when her Lord comes for her.
What then should we do? Give up? HARDLY!
1) Prophetic Witness of the Church to the culture – we must declare the will and law of God boldly regardless of the cost. I am also not saying that you should not exercise your calling as voters and countrymen to affect the laws of this nation for good – that is right use of your national citizenship.
But if we are to declare the will of God, we must ourselves shine as examples or we will simply be those despised people with logs sticking out of our own eyes that Bob McKelvey warned of:
On Marriage – how can we defend it in light of The scandal of the evangelical witness – our divorce rates are higher! We are in danger of falling into the Corinthian dilemma of being worse than the culture.
Often because of our own moral failures the church's opposition to sins like homosexuality just looks like naked hypocrisy on our part - We are outraged only by the sins we are unlikely to commit:
Where was the outrage when no-fault divorce was introduced? Or when Adultery was de-criminalized?
As Bill Smith noted the church was outraged when the Commandments were removed from the courthouse, but we've been ejecting them from the churches for decades! These days we seem to have become so practically antinomian that the only sins we aren't committing or endorsing or crafting a theology to advance are the ones we have no compulsion to commit!
We must resist the urge to indulge in cheerleading rah-rah sessions where we condemn the sins of those outside the church – look at the PAULINE EPISTLES – Paul's convicting emphasis is primarily directed at those within the church.
2) We must create a church that is not tied to or compromised with the culture. The Lukewarm go-along-to get along Laodicean church must not be ours. We will inevitably fall with them if that is the case, Christ will spit us out of his mouth.
3) We must seek to advance the kingdom by boldly proclaiming the gospel
Although he preached at the Aeropagus in Athens, a city riddled with Homosexuality and licentiousness, he did not preach the need for legislation defending the Christian view of marriage, Paul simply preached the gospel calling for all men to repent and believe.
You must do likewise, remembering that you yourselves were also once worldlings and that the change in you came via the grace of God alone!
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Brothers and Sisters go into the world preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and bringing the harvest into the kingdom. Then and only then when real heart change is being affected, and new life in Christ begun, will the church have given the correct response to what our savior told us is a lost and dying world in need of light and life."
- SEAGOON
-
Good man.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.[/- SEAGOON
Seagoon Im incredulous that you would post this as from the bible that most of us use. This is the international version of the bible.The International Bible Society (IBS) was founded in 1809.Their translation added many things that were not there before the editing.
They edited things to suit their particular agenda.
Check your parents bibles. You wont find the word homosexual in it anywhere.
Cor 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
Here is the actual quote from the bible that most of us have seen and were raised on, and the word homosexual isnt there.
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. "
King James:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, it's about equal RIGHTS for all Americans.
If you guys don't see that then I weep for all America.
Im glad you see that we are all equal to be what we want to be. Even you..
And you are just a copy cat :D
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Silat
It is not about what the MAJORITY wants. Its about equal freedoms for all Americans.
If you guys dont see that then I weep for America.
Equal freedoms?
1) Can I, as a heterosexual male, marry another male? - NO
2) Can a homosexual male marry another male? - NO
3) Can I, as a heterosexual male, marry a woman - YES, as long as she or I am not presently married.
4) Can a homosexual male marry a woman - YES, as long as neither of them is presently married.
So where is the inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals as it pertains to marriage? In this context, where does a homosexual have less "freedom" than a heterosexual?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #5
You spend way to much time thinking about others sex lives. No one is gay in my family.
It is not against the grain for me to support anyone who has found their mate to be able to get married as you can. But it is apparently against the grain for you to allow that .
You are getting very personal with me.
Dont attack me when its Gays and who knows who else that you are against.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Equal freedoms?
1) Can I, as a heterosexual male, marry another male? - NO
2) Can a homosexual male marry another male? - NO
3) Can I, as a heterosexual male, marry a woman - YES, as long as she or I am not presently married.
4) Can a homosexual male marry a woman - YES, as long as neither of them is presently married.
So where is the inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals as it pertains to marriage? In this context, where does a homosexual have less "freedom" than a heterosexual?
Ill simplify this for you.
You can marry for love.
But you dont want someone else to do the same.
Clear enough for you?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ill simplify this for you.
You can marry for love.
But you dont want someone else to do the same.
Clear enough for you?
Not exactly.
I love my brother. Should I be allowed to marry him?
If not, then why not?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Not exactly.
I love my brother. Should I be allowed to marry him?
If not, then why not?
If you love your brother it is none of my business. Get it?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum Oh, they ARE married?! Can they conceive a child? Sit down sir.
If the goal of marriage is to have children then sterile people should not be allowed to marry. :rolleyes:
So sit down yourself. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Silat IN the US the rightwing Christians want to force their anti gay beliefs on all of us.
The problem here is that some people want to impose laws based on their personnal religious beliefs. These same people would outright reject the idea of a law based on the Coran that forced women to cover themselves completly.
If it's right for one religion to impose their beliefs on non believers then it's ok for other religions to do the same.
That's why religion should never be used to make laws.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
The problem here is that some people want to impose laws based on their personnal religious beliefs.
Avro, the laws are already imposed and have been in force for decades if not centuries.
The problem here is that some people want to change the laws based upon their personal beliefs.
Who is driving the change?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im glad you see that we are all equal to be what we want to be. Even you..
And you are just a copy cat :D
Of course we are. You can be as homo as you'd like. That's your right. You can get married, too. Just like I can.
To a woman.
Originally posted by Donzo
Equal freedoms?
1) Can I, as a heterosexual male, marry another male? - NO
2) Can a homosexual male marry another male? - NO
You can where I live.
-
How very Henry Ford.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Nash
Whoah. I love optimism.
However out to lunch it may be....
If you think this simple semantic solution will quiet their jihad, then be prepared for a shock.
There's no backing down. There's no "well okay, we can agree to disagree."
Capitulating to any other point of view - giving up any ground - is nothing other than a capitulation to Satan. Sound crazy? Yeah, me too.
You think they gonna compromise on hell? Come on. No - they aint. Their whole entire gig can be summed up as:
"Our way or bust." Because....
Thars no way to negotiate with Satan. There's no middle ground. Them and the Devil aren't gonna craft some nifty piece of bipartisan legislation. Forget about it.
There is only "my way" or highw... er, hell. So - not an option.
The sooner folks get that, the better they understand where these folks are coming from.
Let's see if we understand where their comming from, how about just a natural desire to be married? The Gays I mean of course, and the Lesbians as well, all they want is the same rights as all of us have under the LAW. It has nothing to do with the Church and certainly nothing to do with Satan, unless you wish to also point to Earthly Governments as Satan inspired which I am certain you do'nt.
-
Originally posted by java45
Let's see if we understand where their comming from, how about just a natural desire to be married? The Gays I mean of course, and the Lesbians as well, all they want is the same rights as all of us have under the LAW. It has nothing to do with the Church and certainly nothing to do with Satan, unless you wish to also point to Earthly Governments as Satan inspired which I am certain you do'nt.
They do have the same rights under law.
-
Hi Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
Seagoon Im incredulous that you would post this as from the bible that most of us use. This is the international version of the bible.The International Bible Society (IBS) was founded in 1809.Their translation added many things that were not there before the editing.
They edited things to suit their particular agenda.
Actually my quote was taken from the NKJV not the NIV which was a revision of the KJV commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson publishers and worked on by 130 scholars. It's purpose was simply to update the language to a standard more easily readable in modern English not change the meanings. I use it in my congregation, and it is my second choice for biblical exegesis and exposition.
Check your parents bibles. You wont find the word homosexual in it anywhere.
Cor 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
Here is the actual quote from the bible that most of us have seen and were raised on, and the word homosexual isnt there.
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. "
My friend, I'm having trouble answering this post because I don't even know where to begin.
First off regarding the translation you have used above referencing "boy prostitutes" - I have access to 19 English translations of the Bible of varying age and quality, and the translation you have used above does not occur in any of them. I would suspect that most people's "parents" (not mine incidentally, they did not read the bible) read was either the KJV or RSV. Here are their translations of 1 Cor. 6:9:
KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
RSV: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts"
Now if you don't like the "agenda" of the NIV translation, which is pretty good at this point, let's go with one of the the most literal, scholarly, modern word for word translations on the market, the NASB:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
The reason they made the lexical decision to translate the Greek word arsenokoites Homosexual is because that is what it means. I am not the world's finest Greek scholar by any means, but every (even the liberal) lexicon I own translates this word either "sodomite" or "homosexual."
Now admittedly, proponents of what is called "homosexual theology" in liberal seminaries are trying valiantly to confuse the issue attempting to persuade us that the translation means that Paul is actually condemning Paedophiles who have sex with boys (sorry NAMBLA), not adult homosexuals. The problem is that that really is agenda driven translation and eisegesis. Even if we weren't clear on this passage we still have the unmistakable evidence of Romans 1:26-27
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
And then there is the the evidence of the Old Testament which actually spells out the practice at various points such as Lev. 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Aside from getting down to a rudimentary "please do not ever put part b in part a as it is a sin" (and the OT in particular comes close to this) It couldn't be clearer.
This is confirmed by the fact that every interpretation by an orthodox commentator on these verses going back to the church fathers has agreed that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns homosexuality.
In any event, the pro-homosexual theologians working on the process of textual revision do not assume divine authorship of the bible, plenary inspiration of all the parts, or its controlling authority in all spheres. They also atomize dividing the bible (especially the Old from the New testaments) so of what use would such a bible as they propose be in any event? It would have no more weight in any of its declarations than my own opinions about which is the best color in the spectrum.
[It's orange btw]
Sorry, Silat, blatant modern attempts to craft a "pro-gay" bible aside, one simply cannot escape the fact that wherever homosexual sex is touched on in scripture it is condemned as a sin.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #5
Well, I doubt he expected to be called a homosexual, and to have his children called lesbians.
I really think that people on this BBS should imagine that everyone posting is 6'6 and 260 pounds of pure muscle, then imagine you are standing face to face with them. If you'd still say whatever you were going to, then it probably isn't offensive.
Jackal, why are gay people gay? Did they make a conscious decision to be an "abomination"? Everything I've ever heard about it says there is at least some biological component to it.. so it isn't exactly mature to castigate them for it, much less people who support behaviour between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home (or hotel, or whatever).
I'm not gay. I don't really understand how a guy can look at another guy and be overcome with lust. I can look at a guy and make an honest assessment about whether he is good looking or not (at least by society's standards), I can look at a guy and say "Damn, I wish my (arms, chest, whatever) was as big/ripped as that dude's"... but I don't look at a guy and imagine myself sleeping with him.
I'm not even a particularly religious person, so I'm not even against gay "marriage" except for the fact that it would break millennia of tradition. I think it is kind of sad that two poor "sinners" that are going to go to hell anyway (if you listen to y'all) can't collect benefits on this earthly realm though. That just strikes me as being unfair.
Seagoon, by the way... I have always found your posts to be very well-reasoned and damn near inspirational. I guess if I ever decide to "get religion" I'm moving to North Carolina :).
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Avro, the laws are already imposed and have been in force for decades if not centuries.
The problem here is that some people want to change the laws based upon their personal beliefs.
Who is driving the change?
It's not based on religious beliefs this time though.
And your referendums during the last elections were changes.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Silat,
Actually my quote was taken from the NKJV not the NIV which was a revision of the KJV commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson publishers and worked on by 130 scholars. It's purpose was simply to update the language to a standard more easily readable in modern English not change the meanings. I use it in my congregation, and it is my second choice for biblical exegesis and exposition.
My friend, I'm having trouble answering this post because I don't even know where to begin.
First off regarding the translation you have used above referencing "boy prostitutes" - I have access to 19 English translations of the Bible of varying age and quality, and the translation you have used above does not occur in any of them. I would suspect that most people's "parents" (not mine incidentally, they did not read the bible) read was either the KJV or RSV. Here are their translations of 1 Cor. 6:9:
KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
RSV: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts"
Now if you don't like the "agenda" of the NIV translation, which is pretty good at this point, let's go with one of the the most literal, scholarly, modern word for word translations on the market, the NASB:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
The reason they made the lexical decision to translate the Greek word arsenokoites Homosexual is because that is what it means. I am not the world's finest Greek scholar by any means, but every (even the liberal) lexicon I own translates this word either "sodomite" or "homosexual."
Now admittedly, proponents of what is called "homosexual theology" in liberal seminaries are trying valiantly to confuse the issue attempting to persuade us that the translation means that Paul is actually condemning Paedophiles who have sex with boys (sorry NAMBLA), not adult homosexuals. The problem is that that really is agenda driven translation and eisegesis. Even if we weren't clear on this passage we still have the unmistakable evidence of Romans 1:26-27
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
And then there is the the evidence of the Old Testament which actually spells out the practice at various points such as Lev. 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Aside from getting down to a rudimentary "please do not ever put part b in part a as it is a sin" (and the OT in particular comes close to this) It couldn't be clearer.
This is confirmed by the fact that every interpretation by an orthodox commentator on these verses going back to the church fathers has agreed that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns homosexuality.
In any event, the pro-homosexual theologians working on the process of textual revision do not assume divine authorship of the bible, plenary inspiration of all the parts, or its controlling authority in all spheres. They also atomize dividing the bible (especially the Old from the New testaments) so of what use would such a bible as they propose be in any event? It would have no more weight in any of its declarations than my own opinions about which is the best color in the spectrum.
[It's orange btw]
Sorry, Silat, blatant modern attempts to craft a "pro-gay" bible aside, one simply cannot escape the fact that wherever homosexual sex is touched on in scripture it is condemned as a sin.
- SEAGOON
No matter how you slice it the word HOMOSEXUAL was never in the original text.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #5
What do I expect? Alot more civility and tolerence from those that say they are freedom loving Americans.
Im promoting nothing but the freedom for you to make a choice whether you want to "back seat boogy with another guy".
-
That's because the original text wasn't in English.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
No, thats not correct. :) I understood what Seagoon was saying. I dont go around gay bashing and I doubt Seagoon does either. You see, Christ told us not to judge others. I dont judge gay people, it's not my place to do so. Seagoon I am sure understands that also. For the record, I dont approve of gay bashing or bashing anyone.
Seagoon is talking about what happens when his sermons topic is on homosexuality? Will things progress in America to the point that when Seagoon and other pastors preach that homosexuality is wrong, will they be in trouble for commiting a hate crime? It could very well get to that point imo. What happens to freedom of religion then? What happens to freedom of speech then?
You posted a link to God Hates studmuffins. God doesnt hate gay people, he loves each and everyone of us. It's His desire that we would all come to know Him.
It's late, I'm going to bed now. I hope I made sense :)
Elfie substitute the word Jew for Homosexual and then decide if it becomes hate speech...
And it has been done and is still done.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That's because the original text wasn't in English.
No. That is because the translation in no way comes close to the word HOMOSEXUAL.
Try again...
-
Originally posted by Silat
No. That is because the translation in no way comes close to the word HOMOSEXUAL.
Try again...
Actually, that's exactly what they were referring to.
You try again.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, that's exactly what they were referring to.
You try again.
It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.
The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.
-
Originally posted by Silat
It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.
The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.
Your own argument defeats itself. You've asserted nothing as fact beyond you not knowing the original intention of the word.
Unfortunately for you, it isn't the only place in the Bible that homosexuality is condemned. It was also mentioned in Corinthians, Leviticus, and Romans.Given the other references, we can safely interpret that he was talking about homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by Silat
It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.
The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.
Silat,
I want to be Respectful, but was there any point to my spending time responding to your original post on this subject?
Silat the fact is that most lexographers of the Koine Greek language are agreed that Malakos means "effeminate" in the context (after all when you call a man "soft" what do you mean) and that Arsenokoites means "sodomite."
[The root of this compound word even leads to this: Arsen which means men and Koites which means either bed, sexual relations, or sperm depending on how it is used (the word is always sexual). You put the words together, and the meaning couldn't be more clear a man who has sexual relations with man. It's even more graphic - "A man-copulator."]
Even without 1 Cor. 6:9 and its two obvious words, you are still left with places where the Bible spells out things in even more detail.
Lets take two of them, one OT and one NT:
First Old Testament:
Lev. 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Please note the symmetry in the passage. Adult Males (Zakar) are not to "lie down" (i.e. have sex) with Adult Males (Zakar). If there is any doubt as to what the passage means, the law makes it abundantly clear: as one lays (has sex) with a female.
We are indisputably referring to the kind of sex where an adult male has sex with another adult male. This is called an "abomination" and forbidden. What do we call this kind of sex in English Silat?
Then New Testament:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
(Romans 1:26-27)
Note the symmetry in this passage. Women with Women, Males with Males (arsenes en arsesin). They abandon the "natural sexual use" (chresis) of one another, and in stead "burn for one another" - men with men - committing indecent acts.
What on earth do you think Paul is speaking of here? Tiddlywinks?
Now as I said, I did not make Greek my speciality at Seminary, but I have kept it up to a certain degree so that I could do my sermon exposition and essay writing using the original text. If your position was in any way lexically sound, please believe me, I'd admit it. I draw my beliefs from the text of scripture, therefore to play fast and loose with it and then teach others my errors would be a very great sin. If I sincerely thought the attitude of the Bible towards homosexual sex was "hey its not a problem" that would be what I preached regardless of my personal preferences. Few things irritate me as much as eisegesis.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Few things irritate me as much as eisegesis.
Me too, but the doctor gave me a cream to rub on it and it's not a problem anymore.
-
There's my SAT word for the day.
-
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 :aok
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
-
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.
-
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. :(
-
See Rule #5
-
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.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Maybe you can answer that.
Awww... come on Jackal, you forgot the 'nanner nanner'.
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :confused:
Hard to imagine a more illogical position.
No, Jackal, I'm not gay. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Silat
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.
Ok, I understand your earlier statement now. I think you misunderstand, most Christians dont hate homosexuals, they just believe the activity is wrong based on what the Bible has to say about it. (Seagoon has shown this far better than I could have) Those Christians that do *hate* homosexuals are committing a sin imo. God commands us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That doesnt mean we have to agree with our neighbors actions.
You notice that they did not standup when my family was mentioned.
1) You are a big boy and can defend yourself and yours just fine :)
2) I actually thought the mods would censor his post and saw no need to quote him or respond to him in anyway that might encourage his behavior here in the new User Friendly O'Club.
3) Who really paid attention to him anyways? Anyone who knows you, knows you are an extremely helpful and courteous person.
If you dont want to have gay people married in your church then dont let them.
Churches WILL get sued for refusing to marry gay people. It will go to the Supreme Court eventually. When that happens, Freedom of Religion will be compromised.
Marriage is restricted in more than one way, ie you cant marry your sister, first cousin, a minor, animals, men cant marry men etc. Marriage is, and always has been a union between a man and a woman. I hope it stays that way.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Ok, I understand your earlier statement now. I think you misunderstand, most Christians dont hate homosexuals, they just believe the activity is wrong based on what the Bible has to say about it. (Seagoon has shown this far better than I could have) Those Christians that do *hate* homosexuals are committing a sin imo. God commands us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That doesnt mean we have to agree with our neighbors actions.
<<< Now we are getting somewhere. It is fine if you dont agree. But making law to persecute or make less equal is what the Christian Right is trying to do..>>>>
1) You are a big boy and can defend yourself and yours just fine :)
<>
2) I actually thought the mods would censor his post and saw no need to quote him or respond to him in anyway that might encourage his behavior here in the new User Friendly O'Club.
<>
3) Who really paid attention to him anyways? Anyone who knows you, knows you are an extremely helpful and courteous person.
<>
Churches WILL get sued for refusing to marry gay people. It will go to the Supreme Court eventually. When that happens, Freedom of Religion will be compromised.
<>
Marriage is restricted in more than one way, ie you cant marry your sister, first cousin, a minor, animals, men cant marry men etc. Marriage is, and always has been a union between a man and a woman. I hope it stays that way.
<>
-
Originally posted by Silat
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.
All the posts aimed at you were edited by the time I got here so I have no idea what was said.
On the subject of 'hateful of gays', while there are crack pots in every group, a true Christian would never hate someone because they were gay.
I'm against gay marrage but I don't hate anyone because of their sexual orientation. I had a good friend who 'came out of the closet' and became openly gay. My friendship with him didn't end because of it and I don't think any feeling person would have ended a friendship because of it either.
My point is that you can dissagree with someone's lifestyle without hating them.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
All the posts aimed at you were edited by the time I got here so I have no idea what was said.
On the subject of 'hateful of gays', while there are crack pots in every group, a true Christian would never hate someone because they were gay.
I'm against gay marrage but I don't hate anyone because of their sexual orientation. I had a good friend who 'came out of the closet' and became openly gay. My friendship with him didn't end because of it and I don't think any feeling person would have ended a friendship because of it either.
My point is that you can dissagree with someone's lifestyle without hating them.
We agree on the fact that we can disagree:) But I would never mandate my religious beliefs as the law of the land. And I am not saying you would:)
And for the record I dont lump all Christians in one barrel. Which is why I use the words radical and religious right for the sake of these discussions. I think most associate those terms with those who want to change the law to support their interpretation of what their God wants.
-
<>
I honestly dont believe it's a scare tactic here in Sue-Happy America. People sue for all sorts of crazy stuff, whats even crazier is they win many times.
<>
You are correct, my apologies for not saying anything. This is an angle that didnt occur to me until you mentioned it.
<>
The risk of birth defects caused my marrying close relations (no matter how low) is unacceptable imo because the risk can be avoided entirely by merely not having sex with or marrying your close relatives. I can see your point about making laws to force others to live according to my beliefs. Christians arent the ones trying to change the very definition of Marriage. Gays and gay rights activists are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.
-
And for the record I dont lump all Christians in one barrel. Which is why I use the words radical and religious right for the sake of these discussions. I think most associate those terms with those who want to change the law to support their interpretation of what their God wants.
Ok, that clarifies something for me. Go ahead with your labels :D
I'm in agreement with Seagoon that the Church shouldnt involve itself in politics, but that we should exercise our right to vote as American citizens and vote according to our beliefs. ( I still refuse to vote for the office of president on the same grounds that I discussed before in a previous thread )
-
Look at all these responses since Friday... Weather must not have been as good elsewhere as it was here in Chicago :) I hope you guys got out a little and enjoyed the weekend. I sure did.
Charon
-
I had a good friend who 'came out of the closet' and became openly gay. My friendship with him didn't end because of it and I don't think any feeling person would have ended a friendship because of it either.
One of the very best friends I have ever had was a lesbian. I didnt even know she was a lesbian until I asked her out. :lol When I became aware of her homosexual lifestyle it didnt change our friendship. Well, now that I think about it, thats not true, our friendship DID change. We grew alot closer emotionally because she could open up and talk about things that she didnt feel comfortable with before.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Ok, that clarifies something for me. Go ahead with your labels :D
I'm in agreement with Seagoon that the Church shouldnt involve itself in politics, but that we should exercise our right to vote as American citizens and vote according to our beliefs. ( I still refuse to vote for the office of president on the same grounds that I discussed before in a previous thread )
Im counting on your vote as Im running for Supreme Dictator..
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im counting on your vote as Im running for Supreme Dictator..
:lol
I'm truly sorry Lew, but I couldnt vote for you and still have a clear conscience. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
:lol
I'm truly sorry Lew, but I couldnt vote for you and still have a clear conscience. :)
You will believe in me or you are going to HELL:)
:D
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
In a quick review of my sermons, I can only find one where I responded directly to the subject of gay marriage. Rather than defending myself on the issue, I'll simply print the application portion of the sermon covering what I "preached and promoted" to counter homosexual activism here, and let you decide whether you think this is the promotion of violence. It would however still land me in trouble if preached in Sweden.
Seagoon! Great sermon! I'm not sure what aspects would be illegal in Sweden, but I don't see that you would be charged with a hate crime in Canada. :aok
I have a question though...and I'm not trying to be mean or insulting: Why don't you live by that sermon?
Why wouldn't you want to be like Paul and use the Good News and your witnessing to the culture as your means to change culture? Instead of trying to legislate moral behavior (which doesn't work well), why not change the culture's desire for the behavior. That way, even if gay marriage was legal, no one would exercise that right because they wouldn't want to.
From what I understand, God has given me the right to choose to lead a righteous life or not...why do Christians feel they need to legally force me to lead their version of a righteous life and strip that God given right from me? I know you want to save as many from damnation as possible, but even if you legislate every moral code in the Bible and I live by them all, I will not be saved according to your beliefs because I admit that I do not have faith that the Bible is more than the written word of a man and not a revealed work of God. Of course you could throw the Constitution out the window and try to legally force me to believe...but I would probably prefer to endure persecution and exicution over admitting to something that I do not believe is true.
You mention that your church was outraged about the 10c removal from the courthouse. And based on your posts, you seem to be outraged by "liberal activist" judges and their decisions enough to support reigning in their power and giving more to legislative bodies where religion is concerned.
Why doesn't your church see that when a judge overturns a law like the ban on gay marriage or ordering the removal of the 10c or "under God", that it is not an attack on Christianity. As you say, governments are of this world and for this world...the church is in this world but not of it. If that is the case, then these court decisions cannot harm Christianity or the church...it would only force the congregation to allow God to be their judge of immoral activity rather than an imperfect human judge. The way I see it, that is better for all in the end. Everyone gets to live by their beliefs so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And in the end God decides who lived the righteous life.
-
Originally posted by Silat
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.
Silat, Avro, et al,
A few minor points regarding discussion and debate on this bulletin board in general.
First off, I don't post here as part of a bloc, I am not trying to score points for one team or another, I try to view these discussions as something like the discussion that might occur if we all went out to a pub during one of the cons and began discussing life, the universe, and everything. I self-consciously try to post in exactly the same way I would speak were you sitting directly accross the table from me staring at me over a pint. My view is that while we are obviously divided by viewpoints we are all friends and acquaintances who share a common interest in flight sims in general and one flight sim in particular.
Now, please understand, because I am an evangelical Christian, the means are just as important to me as the ends, and the grounds of an argument are just as important as the final conclusion. So while I understand you lump everyone into the "anti-gay marriage" group, I do not. In some cases I may be further apart from someone in that camp, than someone in the other camp. Let me show you what I mean with a couple of extreme examples:
I am actually much further removed from person A than person B:
PERSON A
Presuppositions/Premises:
1) There is no God
2) There are no such thing as ethics only human constructs
3) Biological and Social Darwinism are the rule
4) For humans to advance, the strong must prevail, the weak must be subjugated or destroyed
5) Homosexuality is contrary to nature, it is a sign of weakness and decadence
Conclusion:
6) Therefore Gay Marriage Must not be Permitted
PERSON B
Presupposistions/Premises:
1) There is a God
2) There are ethical constraints that are absolute that he has given us
3) We should obey his commands
4) Amongst his commands are clear instructions to protect the weakest and the most defenseless in our society
5) Gays are among those who need to be protected
Conclusion:
6) Gay marriage should be permitted
Although I obviously would disagree with the conclusion of person B, I am in even more profound disagreement with every single presupposition of person A. Also, while I can possibly debate constructively with person B, given their commitment to presuppositions 1-4, I will probably have less possibility for profitable interaction with person A, given that our underlying worldviews are completely and irreconcilably opposed. Also, in practical application, should worldview A come to absolute power, I am likely to end up in their concentration camp as yet another example of the "weak minded."
Now as to the ad hominem problem on the B.B., the offensive line "are you gay Silat, is that why you are so pro-gay?" is only one small expression of it. For instance, throughout this conversation, and in this thread, it has been commonly insinuated by many that those who are opposed to gay marriage do so irrationally and mostly because they hate gays. Follow Silat and Avro's threads above for instance. Unfortunately, I've gotten used to this. I am used to being treated like an imbecile or a hatemonger because of my faith, but have tried to commit myself to acting here on the principle of Romans 12:18-19 "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." When I have felt my ability to do this slipping, I've abandoned threads, on a couple of occasions I'll freely admit that I've abandoned a thread because I've found that any possibility of civil discourse has entirely evaporated. But if we committed ourselves to running around rebuking every ad hominem on the board, we'd find discussion impossible and probably all run afoul of rule #6.
In any event, if I have personally been uncivil to anyone here I apologize, I would ask you all to bring any personal breaches of the Romans 12 principle above to my attention so that I might remedy them.
Anywho, I could say more, but I'm being called to dinner, and there are some calls that must be answered. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Seagoon! Great sermon! I'm not sure what aspects would be illegal in Sweden, but I don't see that you would be charged with a hate crime in Canada. :aok
I have a question though...and I'm not trying to be mean or insulting: Why don't you live by that sermon?
Why wouldn't you want to be like Paul and use the Good News and your witnessing to the culture as your means to change culture? Instead of trying to legislate moral behavior (which doesn't work well), why not change the culture's desire for the behavior. That way, even if gay marriage was legal, no one would exercise that right because they wouldn't want to.
And in the end God decides who lived the righteous life.
Snipped for courtesy..
Crow very nicely put. My thoughts exactly.....
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Silat, Avro, et al,
A few minor points regarding discussion and debate on this bulletin board in general.
First off, I don't post here as part of a bloc, I am not trying to score points for one team or another, I try to view these discussions as something like the discussion that might occur if we all went out to a pub during one of the cons and began discussing life, the universe, and everything. I self-consciously try to post in exactly the same way I would speak were you sitting directly accross the table from me staring at me over a pint. My view is that while we are obviously divided by viewpoints we are all friends and acquaintances who share a common interest in flight sims in general and one flight sim in particular.
Now, please understand, because I am an evangelical Christian, the means are just as important to me as the ends, and the grounds of an argument are just as important as the final conclusion. So while I understand you lump everyone into the "anti-gay marriage" group, I do not. In some cases I may be further apart from someone in that camp, than someone in the other camp. Let me show you what I mean with a couple of extreme examples:
I am actually much further removed from person A than person B:
PERSON A
Presuppositions/Premises:
1) There is no God
2) There are no such thing as ethics only human constructs
3) Biological and Social Darwinism are the rule
4) For humans to advance, the strong must prevail, the weak must be subjugated or destroyed
5) Homosexuality is contrary to nature, it is a sign of weakness and decadence
Conclusion:
6) Therefore Gay Marriage Must not be Permitted
PERSON B
Presupposistions/Premises:
1) There is a God
2) There are ethical constraints that are absolute that he has given us
3) We should obey his commands
4) Amongst his commands are clear instructions to protect the weakest and the most defenseless in our society
5) Gays are among those who need to be protected
Conclusion:
6) Gay marriage should be permitted
Although I obviously would disagree with the conclusion of person B, I am in even more profound disagreement with every single presupposition of person A. Also, while I can possibly debate constructively with person B, given their commitment to presuppositions 1-4, I will probably have less possibility for profitable interaction with person A, given that our underlying worldviews are completely and irreconcilably opposed. Also, in practical application, should worldview A come to absolute power, I am likely to end up in their concentration camp as yet another example of the "weak minded."
Now as to the ad hominem problem on the B.B., the offensive line "are you gay Silat, is that why you are so pro-gay?" is only one small expression of it. For instance, throughout this conversation, and in this thread, it has been commonly insinuated by many that those who are opposed to gay marriage do so irrationally and mostly because they hate gays. Follow Silat and Avro's threads above for instance. Unfortunately, I've gotten used to this. I am used to being treated like an imbecile or a hatemonger because of my faith, but have tried to commit myself to acting here on the principle of Romans 12:18-19 "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." When I have felt my ability to do this slipping, I've abandoned threads, on a couple of occasions I'll freely admit that I've abandoned a thread because I've found that any possibility of civil discourse has entirely evaporated. But if we committed ourselves to running around rebuking every ad hominem on the board, we'd find discussion impossible and probably all run afoul of rule #6.
In any event, if I have personally been uncivil to anyone here I apologize, I would ask you all to bring any personal breaches of the Romans 12 principle above to my attention so that I might remedy them.
Anywho, I could say more, but I'm being called to dinner, and there are some calls that must be answered. ;)
- SEAGOON
Are you out of the bathroom yet?:)
You and I have talked personally and explained ourselves. We have talked about family and exchanged family information.
I would never ask you or anyone on this board what there personal preferences were regarding sex. And I would never ask about their family members. These questions have nothing to do with our conversations.
I stand by my statement that if no one stands up to HATE speech then we will all suffer the consequences.
If someone on this board said you were a !#@($*$(*)($* Christian then I would be the first to standup for you. If Ive missed that happening then I standup now to defend you:)
I accept that we disagree on many things and that doesnt mean we cant have heated but polite discourse.
I will never understand your stance on some issues but that is OK. As long as you know that you are wrong and I am right:):):)
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Seagoon! Great sermon! I'm not sure what aspects would be illegal in Sweden, but I don't see that you would be charged with a hate crime in Canada. :aok
Crow,
Thank you. Keep in mind that was only point three in a three pointer. The other two points were #1 What does the Bible Teach About Gay Marriage? #2 How Does A Society Get to this Point? How did We?
The Swedish law assumes that to call homosexual sex an abomination is an act of hate against homosexuals likely to incite violence towards them, so reading and preaching Leviticus or Romans as I did in point 1 would immediately get me in trouble.
I have a question though...and I'm not trying to be mean or insulting: Why don't you live by that sermon?
Why wouldn't you want to be like Paul and use the Good News and your witnessing to the culture as your means to change culture? Instead of trying to legislate moral behavior (which doesn't work well), why not change the culture's desire for the behavior. That way, even if gay marriage was legal, no one would exercise that right because they wouldn't want to.
From what I understand, God has given me the right to choose to lead a righteous life or not...why do Christians feel they need to legally force me to lead their version of a righteous life and strip that God given right from me? I know you want to save as many from damnation as possible, but even if you legislate every moral code in the Bible and I live by them all, I will not be saved according to your beliefs because I admit that I do not have faith that the Bible is more than the written word of a man and not a revealed work of God. Of course you could throw the Constitution out the window and try to legally force me to believe...but I would probably prefer to endure persecution and exicution over admitting to something that I do not believe is true.
That's a valid question, and it indicates that I probably wasn't clear enough. I certainly try to practice that which I preach and teach (in all things I fall short, and remain a debtor to grace.) I do not advocate that the church become involved in partisan politics, and in my role as a pastor, God forbid that I would ever abuse my calling and stand in the pulpit and act as a shill for one party or the other.
However, Christians are called, as I said in the sermon snipet, to be good citizens and the church must exercise a prophetic role in society by proclaiming both law and gospel.
We believe that the moral law of God which is summarized in the Ten Commandments (decalogue) has three uses:
1) As Revealer of Sin - By showing us God's holiness and our reflected sinfulness the law acts as a schoolmaster leading us to Christ for salvation
2) As the Norm For Sanctification - Once we have come to Christ for salvation and been given new hearts the law acts as a rule and guide for our sanctification - growth in grace, answering critical questions for the Christian like "How should I act towards God? How should I treat my fellow men?"
3) As a Restrainer of Sin - This third use of the law is sometimes called the usus politicus or usus civilis it states that the moral law of God is supposed to function as the rule and guide for our civil laws. Here is a section from a systematic theology explaining it further:
"C. The Law as a Restraint to Sin – usus politicus or usus civilis .
In addition to these two direct uses of the law, there is a beneficial side–effect of the preaching of the law. Such preaching serves to act as a restraining influence against sin in the world. The law systems of the various western European countries were based on the Ten Commandments. This is certainly true regarding the English law, which was the basis for American law. As one analyzes the nature of any human system of law, he must recognize that it always involves a theology. Law is based on an ultimate authority––God or man. When a society sets aside the theological basis upon which its laws are based, it is in danger of losing the whole law fabric. This is the current situation in America today. It is the duty of Christians to seek to call their nation back to a proper theological basis for the laws of the land."
[Smith, Dr. Morton H. Systematic Theology, Volume One : Prolegomena, Theology, Anthropology, Christology.]
So the church is called to proclaim the whole counsel of God, and Christians are to strive to live their lives according to it. In the legislative arena (which is entered into not by the church, but by private citizens who are members of it) this will involve standing for laws based on the moral law and voting against laws that seek to overturn it.
But our ultimate objective is not to win the battle against sin and evil by legislation, the most that legislation can do is restrain it. As you pointed out our ultimate desire is to change hearts and lives forever via the gospel.
You mention that your church was outraged about the 10c removal from the courthouse. And based on your posts, you seem to be outraged by "liberal activist" judges and their decisions enough to support reigning in their power and giving more to legislative bodies where religion is concerned.
[/b]
Actually, I paraphrased another pastor by the name of Bill Smith who noted the irony in the fact that American Evangelicals (the church corporately not our church particularly) was upset at the removal of a 10 commandments monument in Alabama but that evangelicals had been "ejecting" the same ten commandments from their churches for years (just mention the 10 commandments around many Christians and immediately the word "legalist" comes out) What good is a chunk of rock if the words printed on it have no value to either the world or the church?
BTW - I am convinced that only an originalist interpretation of the constitution will safeguard the rights vouchsafed in the constitution, amongst them the right to freedom of religion.
Why doesn't your church see that when a judge overturns a law like the ban on gay marriage or ordering the removal of the 10c or "under God", that it is not an attack on Christianity. As you say, governments are of this world and for this world...the church is in this world but not of it. If that is the case, then these court decisions cannot harm Christianity or the church...it would only force the congregation to allow God to be their judge of immoral activity rather than an imperfect human judge. The way I see it, that is better for all in the end. Everyone gets to live by their beliefs so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. And in the end God decides who lived the righteous life.
The Church and State are separate powers, ordained over separate spheres. The church has no right to make a constitution for or rule the state, and the state has no right to make a constitution for or rule the church. However (and this understanding is also that of the constitution and its framers) we would say that both of their powers devolve from God, and that that power is delegated by God. He has ordained them to act as his viceregents and given them power to do so.
However, if I, as an elder in the church, set aside God's laws and say "listen instead to my opinions, obey my word, not God's word, I shall be as God to you" as so many cult leaders have for instance, then I cease to be an undershepherd of the Lord and become a usurper, and a tyrant. God's people have a right at that point to say, "NO! We ought to obey God rather than Man. You have no right nor power to say and do these things, nor to insist that we do them. Only God can command our consciences."
In a similar fashion, when a civil magistrate overturns the decalogue and says "I will instead rule according to my opinions" he ceases to be a just ruler rightly exercising his delegated power and becomes a tyrant and a usurper. In matters indifferent (alternate side of the street parking laws for example) on which the decalogue doesn't directly bear, his opinions may hold sway and are to obeyed if they are the law of the land.
However if, for instance, he says, "Those who buy the right to do so from me, may legally seize your land at will", he has overturned God's law which states "You shall not steal." He may believe it is legal, but it is not, and no Christian may lawfully buy and exercise that unlawful power. Moreover, it is their duty in the civil sphere, in so far as they can, to oppose all such laws.
Plus, keep in mind that as private citizens we have no desire to live in, or attempt to raise our children in, a land dominated by immoral laws. If we have no choice, as was the case in Corinth long ago or North Korea today, then we will do so, but in a society such as ours we will do what we can to create a society with laws that sweetly comply God's laws.
- SEAGOON
-
SEA unless Im mistaken you believe in a literal reading of the bible although you accept translations that fit your needs?
If so how do you pick and choose what you believe?
" It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). "
I find some glaring contradictions in the book. Which means I find glaring contradictions when someone says they believe in the bible as the written word and that it is what we should follow as your God's law.
If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?
Believe it or not this is the very short list of contradictions:
Theological doctrines:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
Moral Precepts
24. Robbery commanded
Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
Robbery forbidden
Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
25. Lying approved and sanctioned
Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
Lying forbidden
Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
2 Kings 14:7,3
Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
Deut 23:7
27. Killing commanded
Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden
Ex 20:13
28. The blood-shedder must die
Gen 9:5,6
The blood-shedder must not die
Gen 4:15
Historical Facts
58. Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19
59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease
Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years
Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart
Ex 4:21/ Ed 9:12
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
Ex 8:15
61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died
Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9
All the horses of Egypt did not die
Ex 14:9
62. Moses feared Pharaoh
Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19
Moses did not fear Pharaoh
Heb 11:27
Speculative Doctrines
108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
109. Jesus was all-powerful
Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
Jesus was not all-powerful
Mark 6:5
110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
Matt 5:17-19
111. Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14
Christ's mission was not peace
Matt 10:34
112. Christ received not testimony from man
John 5:33,34
Christ did receive testimony from man
John 15:27
113. Christ's witness of himself is true.
John 8:18,14
Christ's witness of himself is not true.
John 5:31
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
3) As a Restrainer of Sin - This third use of the law is sometimes called the usus politicus or usus civilis it states that the moral law of God is supposed to function as the rule and guide for our civil laws. Here is a section from a systematic theology explaining it further:
So the church is called to proclaim the whole counsel of God, and Christians are to strive to live their lives according to it. In the legislative arena (which is entered into not by the church, but by private citizens who are members of it) this will involve standing for laws based on the moral law and voting against laws that seek to overturn it.
However, if I, as an elder in the church, set aside God's laws and say "listen instead to my opinions, obey my word, not God's word, I shall be as God to you" as so many cult leaders have for instance, then I cease to be an undershepherd of the Lord and become a usurper, and a tyrant. God's people have a right at that point to say, "NO! We ought to obey God rather than Man. You have no right nor power to say and do these things, nor to insist that we do them. Only God can command our consciences."
In a similar fashion, when a civil magistrate overturns the decalogue and says "I will instead rule according to my opinions" he ceases to be a just ruler rightly exercising his delegated power and becomes a tyrant and a usurper. In matters indifferent (alternate side of the street parking laws for example) on which the decalogue doesn't directly bear, his opinions may hold sway and are to obeyed if they are the law of the land.
However if, for instance, he says, "Those who buy the right to do so from me, may legally seize your land at will", he has overturned God's law which states "You shall not steal." He may believe it is legal, but it is not, and no Christian may lawfully buy and exercise that unlawful power. Moreover, it is their duty in the civil sphere, in so far as they can, to oppose all such laws.
Plus, keep in mind that as private citizens we have no desire to live in, or attempt to raise our children in, a land dominated by immoral laws. If we have no choice, as was the case in Corinth long ago or North Korea today, then we will do so, but in a society such as ours we will do what we can to create a society with laws that sweetly comply God's laws.
Greetings Seagoon,
I edited your post for brevity of my response...which I'm afraid may still be long.
Anyway, usus politicus/usus civili...hmmm are those in the Bible? Is that God's words or John Calvin's? To me, that concept seems counter to the sermon you quoted earlier. It seemed you were saying the church is above man's law, so man's laws are inconsequential to the church. Are you leaving unto Cesar what is Cesar's or are you looking to press your interpretation of God's will onto Cesar? If you are, that seems to violate the "I shall become God to you" quote. Calvin was not God, so why are you listening to him rather than the Bible itself? Is it incomplete and need supplementing?
And let me stress that it is your interpretation...which may or may not be correct. As I said in an earlier post, to even assume that yours is correct is hubris since you are attempting to guess God's will. But seriously...there are many interpretations of the Bible. Perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses have the correct interpretation...in which case your congregation should not vote at all. But if you did, you would need to vote to ban blood transfusions. If we were to look at other more fundamentalist interpretations, then physicians should be banned, since only God can give life. Or perhaps the Amish are correct and we should ban electricity and automobiles.
It seems to me, that our Constitution was designed to give religous freedom by not mandating any specific interpretation of God's will. So that my interpretation of God's will is just as valid as yours. And just because you may be of a majority mind does not give you the authority to legislate your interpretation on me. Wasn't that why the Pilgrims left for the New World to begin with?
But let's look more closely at the Constitution. I would put to you that it is a very unGodly document based on some interpretations of the Bible. It blatantly opposes the Decalogue and Mosaic law in several areas. Free speech...that's not allowed in the 10c: no taking the Lord's name in vain. Freedom of religion...that's not allowed either, only religions based on the God of Moses are allowed.
So, are you saying that if a law were passed outlawing non-Jehovah/Yahweh religions so as to conform with the 1st Commandment and a judge struck it down as a violation of the 1st Amendment, then that judge has become a usurper and tyrant?
Originally posted by Seagoon
Plus, keep in mind that as private citizens we have no desire to live in, or attempt to raise our children in, a land dominated by immoral laws.
By whose yardstick do we measure that morality? Yours...a Jehovah's Witness...the Amish...Catholic...Hindu? The moment you choose, you violate the 1st Amendment. I see no difference in legislating all the moral laws of a religion compared to out-and-out establishing that religion as the national religion.
Originally posted by Seagoon
but in a society such as ours we will do what we can to create a society with laws that sweetly comply God's laws.
But that seems contrary to the sermon you gave. Would Paul have legislated away the right of choice to live righteously? Is that what God wants...for you to take away the right He gave me?
I cannot see how you can "sweetly" create those laws. It really sounds exactly like the kind of theocracy that is in Iran. That country is a democracy with legitimate elections and a government with checks and balances just like ours...the only difference is that there are 4 branches of government. The extra one is a council that makes sure that laws comply sweetly with God's laws and that the people who can be chosen to lead in government live righteously.
Frankly Seagoon...that kind of talk gives me the willies.
-
Hello Silat
Originally posted by Silat
SEA unless Im mistaken you believe in a literal reading of the bible although you accept translations that fit your needs?
If so how do you pick and choose what you believe?
I generally use a dependable translation for study like the NASB or the NKJV backed up by the WTT BHS (Hebrew) and the NA27 (Greek). I use the NKJV with an interlinear for daily reading.
When it comes to the lexical differences between the major English translations (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV) etc. none of them are radical enough to change a single doctrine. In fact, we regularly have bible studies where everyone is using a different translation, and yet we can all read along following the flow without once having to do a double take and say "well that's not right."
As far as picking and choosing go, I don't. I believe in the plenary, verbal, inspiration of the original autographs of the Bible. As we continue to discover older manuscripts of the canonical books, our confidence in our modern translations continues to grow. Pick up say an NASB in your local bookshop and you have for all intents and purposes a dependable translation of the word of God. Of course, I understand you do not believe the original authors to have been inspired, but regardless for all intents and purposes what they wrote is what you have access to.
The critical question is and always has been not are the translations dependable, but do you believe what they tell you? The answer to that question is ultimately where you and I differ.
I believe every word.
Lew we've gone over the following before, I think its largely pointless to do so again, I could spend hours interacting with all of them, but would that suddenly change your mind as to their veracity? It's like our prior interaction over 1 Cor. 6:9, I did the translational work knowing all the time that the words themselves were only authoratative to one of us in any event.
In other words, for me, this is the self-revelation of the living God who created the Universe, and is a sure rule and guide for my life, faith, and practice.
For you, its a document of dubious authenticity created entirely by primative men in order to explain what was to them unexplainable. Fine, I understand that, at one time that would have been my take (or worse actually) but I wasn't convinced otherwise by a process of battling over each scripture and verse, and I doubt you will be either.
Although, its pointless, just to show I'm not unwilling to give a reason for the hope that I have, here are a few, dealing properly with all of them would take hours...
" It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.
There are no "innocent people" after the fall in Gen. 3, see Gen. 8:21, Romans 3:10, Eph. 2:3, etc. And the commandment was "Lo Ratsach" - no murder. A blanket prohibition on killing would cover every living thing, and contradict the entire prior declaration to Noah in Gen. 9 which stated the lawfullness of killing animals for food and putting murderers to death (capital punishment).
Going through the rest of your quotes, the inhabitants of Canaan are not innocent, see above, additionally they were idolators who practiced infant sacrifice to false Gods by burning them alive, something declared an abomination and forbidden to the people of Israel. If they converted they were added to the people of God as were Rahab and Ruth.
The slavery spoken of was limited (unlike every other nation at the time) to seven years after which the captive was to be freed unless he opted to voluntarily stay and all female slaves taken as wives were specifically not to be denied the rights of a wife, which was also not a bargain you would have gotten in other nation at the time.
You call it murder (although if there is no God, the word itself is meaningless) implying that a righteous and holy God has no right to judge his creatures or punish them for cosmic treason, rebellion, and a host of other sins against His laws that make the crimes that we execute for paltry by comparison.
In your system Lew there is no such thing as a moral law given by God and consequently no sin, and the creator of the universe has no right of just punishment temporal or eternal. If he did cause the death of someone it would be no more just (but curiously no more unjust in a boundless system) than a drive by shooting. In a nutshell, the whole message of redemption and salvation makes no sense because it is inherently unnecessary. There was no creator, no fall, no sin, and no fear of damnation. The sacrifice of Christ was therefore an unnecessary tragedy because no one was in need of salvation. There is no need for "good news" because there is no "bad news." Of course nothing in the Bible makes sense in such a system Lew, you have dismissed every feature that makes sense of the narrative and gives order and meaning to its unfolding progression.
To make a comparison, it would be like a murder mystery written in a society that had no legal system, no catagory of murder, and no possibility of punishment.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Silat
- SEAGOON
Im just quoting the Hello as it seems so friendly:)
Lets just take one contradiction:
Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
If this doesnt suffice for the discussion then you pick one.
How can we/you take literally the word if the word is contradictory?
And Im not talking with you to verify the word. No one can do that:)
Im talking with you to understand your beliefs:)
On one hand I do think you have made it clear that you take the word at face value based on your interpretation.
Im just trying to understand how you reconcile that with all the contradictions. If I were to be this contradictory Im sure you would ask me the same question.
I believe in morals but not that God gave them to us. I do believe that people sin as per the definition of the word.Being a believer doesnt mean that you have morals and I dont.
I dont think we differ as much as you think as far as sin goes. We differ on a few select issues.:)
For brevity I didnt take the whole quote. But murder is murder with or without God in my value system. It didnt take religion for man to understand that murder was wrong.
Anyway I understand if you dont want to continue this.. Seriously I do. Its a discussion that wont end. :)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon Now as to the ad hominem problem on the B.B., the offensive line "are you gay Silat, is that why you are so pro-gay?" is only one small expression of it. For instance, throughout this conversation, and in this thread, it has been commonly insinuated by many that those who are opposed to gay marriage do so irrationally and mostly because they hate gays. Follow Silat and Avro's threads above for instance. Unfortunately, I've gotten used to this. I am used to being treated like an imbecile or a hatemonger because of my faith, but have tried to commit myself to acting here on the principle of Romans 12:18-19 "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." When I have felt my ability to do this slipping, I've abandoned threads, on a couple of occasions I'll freely admit that I've abandoned a thread because I've found that any possibility of civil discourse has entirely evaporated. But if we committed ourselves to running around rebuking every ad hominem on the board, we'd find discussion impossible and probably all run afoul of rule #6.
I'm not saying those against gay marriages hate gays. I'm saying that their arguments are illogical.
Logic is the only way to argument meaningfully because everyone can understand logic. That's why I use it in my arguments.
I cannot discuss something based on religion since I'm not religious myself. I find the concept highly illogical.
I don't mind religious people as long as they don't tell me what I should do. Those don't affect me at all so I don't mind them just like I don't mind gays wanting to get married.
The laws in Canada defends the right of religions to not perform gay marriages if they are against them. Without this clause the law would be anticonstitutionnal.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
I'm not saying those against gay marriages hate gays. I'm saying that their arguments are illogical.
Logic is the only way to argument meaningfully because everyone can understand logic. That's why I use it in my arguments.
I cannot discuss something based on religion since I'm not religious myself. I find the concept highly illogical.
I don't mind religious people as long as they don't tell me what I should do. Those don't affect me at all so I don't mind them just like I don't mind gays wanting to get married.
The laws in Canada defends the right of religions to not perform gay marriages if they are against them. Without this clause the law would be anticonstitutionnal.
Declaring something illogical doesn't always make it so. If you have never seen a logical argument, and a compelling one, opposing ssm, you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.
-
Martlet, here's a quick summary of the 'arguments' used again same sex marriage so far:
1. It's against the will of God/immoral.
2. It's unnatural.
3. If it doesn't produce offspring, then it is illogical.
If I've left out any, please jump in. I don't find any of the three above to be either logical OR compelling.
Answer to 1: That's nice and all, but your God ain't mine. Atheism and religion are NOT two great flavors that taste even better together, the way Peanut Butter and Chocolate do.
Answer to 2: Most of these arguments seem to circle back to 1. By the very nature of the concept, you can't violate a law of nature. The mere existance of the Turducken is proof of this.
Answer to 3: When pressed if barren or sterile male/female couples should be prevented from marrying, this falls apart. Conversely, suggestion legislation that mandates children seems to suffer the same lack of resolve.
Martlet, jump in if you have an argument not covered above that you find compelling, and I'll edit it into my post.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Martlet, here's a quick summary of the 'arguments' used again same sex marriage so far:
1. It's against the will of God/immoral.
2. It's unnatural.
3. If it doesn't produce offspring, then it is illogical.
If I've left out any, please jump in. I don't find any of the three above to be either logical OR compelling.
Answer to 1: That's nice and all, but your God ain't mine. Atheism and religion are NOT two great flavors that taste even better together, the way Peanut Butter and Chocolate do.
Answer to 2: Most of these arguments seem to circle back to 1. By the very nature of the concept, you can't violate a law of nature. The mere existance of the Turducken is proof of this.
Answer to 3: When pressed if barren or sterile male/female couples should be prevented from marrying, this falls apart. Conversely, suggestion legislation that mandates children seems to suffer the same lack of resolve.
Martlet, jump in if you have an argument not covered above that you find compelling, and I'll edit it into my post.
He didn't say THESE areguments are illogical, he used a broad statement encompassing all arguments. That was what I addressed.
The people opposed to SSM fall into numerous camps. You may not agree with them, but many of them are legitimate. Some of the most popular are:
1. Religious. While this is a completely legitimate belief, it has no legal basis in a secular society. It certainly doesn't stop people from voting their conscience.
2. Community values. This is more popular and has a legal basis. Many people believe, correctly, that homosexuality is a deviant behavior. While they support a person's right to participate in this behavior, they don't want to put their state seal of approval declaring the condone it.
3. Another popular position, and the one I subscribe to, isn't so much with SSM directly, but the manner in which it was forced upon the voters through judicial activism.
-
Interracial marriage was a big no-no in much of the country and the opponents of it used those same points. I think that's pretty telling.
That would give me pause, were I making the points you did, unless I was comfortable with racial discrimination and segregation.
-
Some religion's allow same sex marriage.....
wouldn't it stand to reason, under freedom of religon, that this MUST be allowed in the U.S.?
I mean if that's how they want to worship .. who are you to say they can't ?
Or maybe you want the govement coming into YOUR church?
between sepration of church and state ... and freedom of religion... I'd say your unAmerican if you want to force YOUR religion on others.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Interracial marriage was a big no-no in much of the country and the opponents of it used those same points. I think that's pretty telling.
That would give me pause, were I making the points you did, unless I was comfortable with racial discrimination and segregation.
inter-racial marriage is a straw man argument that pro-SSM types like to toss out.
First, "a big no-no" is far different than "not legal". Secondly, an inter-racial marriage doesn't change the definition of "marriage".
-
Originally posted by Martlet
inter-racial marriage is a straw man argument that pro-SSM types like to toss out.
Respectfully, it is no more a straw-man argument then the following:
Originally posted by Martlet
an inter-racial marriage doesn't change the definition of "marriage".
The same heterosexual couples will still be able to marry if gay couples are, so where's the change that affects you?
Originally posted by Martlet
"a big no-no" is far different than "not legal".
As the gentleman in ID4 said, "That's not... entirely... accurate." Antimiscegenation laws were on the books nationwide until relatively recently. Same arguments were posed to prevent allowing them to be struck down as you are using to argue against allowing homosexuals to marry.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Respectfully, it is no more a straw-man argument then the following:
It certainly is. Again, the two aren't comparable. One changes the definition of marriage and was previously against the law. The other doesn't, wasn't, and was merely social taboo.
Again, it's a straw man argument.
Originally posted by Chairboy
The same heterosexual couples will still be able to marry if gay couples are, so where's the change that affects you?
Who said anything about the change affecting me?
Same arguments were posed to prevent allowing them to be struck down as you are using to argue against allowing homosexuals to marry.
Again, that isn't accurate. Any inter-racial marriage laws that existed, and I know of none, would have been struck down as unconstitutional since they are based entirely on race. You can have inter-racial marriage and still fall within the definition of "marriage". Not so with SSM
-
You're wrong about the 'mere social taboo', didn't you see the bit in my post about Antimiscegenation laws?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're wrong about the 'mere social taboo', didn't you see the bit in my post about Antimiscegenation laws?
I did, yet I didn't see any sources to back it up. Regardless, I explained why in my previous post.
-
Loving v. Virginia
Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia still upheld the antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in jail, but promised the sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law. In March of 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states which still had antimiscegenation laws on their books were forced to erase them.
-
As you can see, it was quite a bit different from being merely a 'social taboo', it was also quite against the law, the same way same sex marriages are.
I didn't provide sources, as I thought you knew what antimiscegenation laws were. Thanks to Google, of course, a definition wasn't more then a click away. :D
As you can see, there are many parallels between the legal battles decades ago of those who disagreed on the subject of interracial marriage and today's political discussion regarding same sex marriage.
I bet there are some people who feel pretty silly about supporting those laws back then.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
As you can see, it was quite a bit different from being merely a 'social taboo', it was also quite against the law, the same way same sex marriages are.
I didn't provide sources, as I thought you knew what antimiscegenation laws were. Thanks to Google, of course, a definition wasn't more then a click away. :D
As you can see, there are many parallels between the legal battles decades ago of those who disagreed on the subject of interracial marriage and today's political discussion regarding same sex marriage.
I bet there are some people who feel pretty silly about supporting those laws back then.
Again, there are no parallels. You're putting forth a straw man argument. In one case, laws were ruled unconstitutional. In another, the words used in existing laws were redefined. If the cases were to be similar, then the existing marriage laws would have had to have been ruled unconstitutional and tossed out, all marriages on hold until new laws could be written.
Completely different scenarios, no matter how hard the pro-ssm tries to draw parallels.
-
The thing is... gay marriages HAVE been put on hold in a number of states while this is worked out. Multnomah county, San Francisco, and so on.
The harder you squeeze, the more veracity slips through your fingers, to paraphrase the sparky Princess Leia.
If we had referees, I think the 'cognitive dissonance' flag would have been thrown out onto the field by now.
-
Blimey this one still running? Just let em do what they want as long as it doesn't involve me!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The thing is... gay marriages HAVE been put on hold in a number of states while this is worked out. Multnomah county, San Francisco, and so on.
The harder you squeeze, the more veracity slips through your fingers, to paraphrase the sparky Princess Leia.
If we had referees, I think the 'cognitive dissonance' flag would have been thrown out onto the field by now.
I said "existing marriage laws". I said nothing about SSM. See, that's how our system is supposed to work.
If current marriage laws are deemed to be unConstitutional by the Court, then the court tosses them out. Then we go back to the books and write NEW marriage laws that the Court agrees coincides with the spirit of the Constitution, OR, we go back and amend the Constitution. One route is easy, the other is intentionally made hard.
That isn't what happened, though. Some individuals decided they didn't like the laws so didn't have to obey them. Some judges decided to change the meaning and intent of existing laws. The pro-ssm crowd has no problem with this flagrant violation of our system because it suits their agenda. The vast majority of Americans do, though, as is evident by the relaliation.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That isn't what happened, though. Some individuals decided they didn't like the laws so didn't have to obey them. Some judges decided to change the meaning and intent of existing laws. The pro-ssm crowd has no problem with this flagrant violation of our system because it suits their agenda.
Technically, that's exactly what happened with Loving v. Virginia regarding interracial marriage. Do you have the same problem with the laws that were struck down as a result of that court case? If so, man up to it so we're on a level playing field. If not, then your point can be condensed down to 'because I don't like it'.
I'm starting to wonder if you're really just missing the connection, or if you're deliberately maneuvering around it because it hurts your case. I'd like to assume the best about your intentions, but it's getting awful tricky considering your recent responses.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Technically, that's exactly what happened with Loving v. Virginia regarding interracial marriage.
I'm starting to wonder if you're really just missing the connection, or if you're deliberately maneuvering around it because it hurts your case. I'd like to assume the best about your intentions, but it's getting awful tricky considering your recent responses.
No, that isn't what happened with Loving v. Virginia. In fact, the exact opposite happened. In that case, the system worked as it was designed. They got married legally outside Virginia. They returned to Virginia, were convicted and sentenced. They filed a motion declaring the law unConstitutional, but the VaSC upheld the law. The USSC declared it unConstitutional, which resulted in every state that had similar laws in place being forced to repeal them.
No disrespect intended, but you really should read a little before you present your argument.
Like I said: It's a straw man.
-
I think we're going to have to 'agree to disagree', as frustrating as that is, especially considering the nature of the disagreement.
It's obvious that we see different things when looking at the facts, and I guess that's just one of those great things about our country. I'm not going to drop to your level regarding the 'you really should read a little' crack, but I am a bit disappointed. That doesn't change the nature of our disagreement, of course, or the argument.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens in legislature. I hope that justice is done. If that means allowing same sex marriage, then great. If justice means something else, then color me startled.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think we're going to have to 'agree to disagree', as frustrating as that is, especially considering the nature of the disagreement.
It's obvious that we see different things when looking at the facts, and I guess that's just one of those great things about our country. I'm not going to drop to your level regarding the 'you really should read a little' crack, but I am a bit disappointed. That doesn't change the nature of our disagreement, of course, or the argument.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens in legislature. I hope that justice is done. If that means allowing same sex marriage, then great. If justice means something else, then color me startled.
Well, you've been "colored startled" in every single state an Amendment has gone to the voters, then.
The facts are the facts.
-
Common misunderstanding: I said "I hope justice is done" not "I hope the vote goes in my favor". I'm not certain that justice has been done, but time will tell. Maybe, 50 years from now, I'll be shaking my head and saying 'wow, in the light of history, I guess you were right', but I sure don't agree with that now.
Let's wait and see.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Common misunderstanding: I said "I hope justice is done" not "I hope the vote goes in my favor". I'm not certain that justice has been done, but time will tell. Maybe, 50 years from now, I'll be shaking my head and saying 'wow, in the light of history, I guess you were right', but I sure don't agree with that now.
Let's wait and see.
Justice certainly isn't done when the means is judicial activism.
-
Hi Crow,
I have to admit that probably like many posters here, I'm beginning to burn out on this thread. I don't know about others, but the warning sign for me is when every post I make is one I didn't really want to make. However, since you raised some substantive issues in your last post, you certainly deserve an attempt at a respectful reply.
Originally posted by crowMAW
Greetings Seagoon,
I edited your post for brevity of my response...which I'm afraid may still be long.
Don't worry about it Crow, all my posts are too darn long, as I said elsewhere I'm writing a book stream of consciousness style one BB post at a time.
Anyway, usus politicus/usus civili...hmmm are those in the Bible? Is that God's words or John Calvin's?
No, the words aren't in the Bible, but the concept certainly is. The usus politicus was not a creation of Calvin incidentally, you'll find the idea in the theology of a number of Christian denominations including the Lutherans. In fact, you'll even find the basic principles being outlined in Augustine's works which were penned about 1200 years before the birth of Calvin. Indeed the concept of binding natural laws devolving from God can be found throughout the history of the church. The issue here is one of systematic theology, i.e. the systematic and catagorical arrangement of doctrine taught in the bible. There are plenty of theological concepts taught in scripture that we have created words to describe, "Trinity" for instance. The bible does not use the word, but it does teach that the godhead is Triune.
To me, that concept seems counter to the sermon you quoted earlier. It seemed you were saying the church is above man's law, so man's laws are inconsequential to the church. Are you leaving unto Cesar what is Cesar's or are you looking to press your interpretation of God's will onto Cesar?
Crow, I'm writing almost all of the following to explain the theology that lies behind the sermon snippet, I'll caveat that you won't accept this, and I seriously doubt more than a handful of the members of the BB will either.
There are two issues at work here. First, as Christians we confess that there is only one God, and that as the Psalms put it, all the gods of the nations are idols and that regardless of whether we choose to accept it, he is sovereign over all creation, and that he has not left his creation in the dark but has revealed his will to us via the scripture.
The second issue is what is sometimes called "sphere sovereignty." The bible identifies three separate spheres that God ordained in his word to govern humans. They are - The Family, The Civil Magistrate, and the Church. Each of them has a degree of sovereignty over their own area.
For instance, as a Pastor, I have no right to go into a family and command a father to arrange his furniture in such and such away, or send his kids to such and such a school, or tell them when they are to go to bed, and so on. He is the head of his family, not me, he has been given authority over that sphere. But that authority he has been given is delegated by God - in fact the Christian believes that all authority is necessarily delegated authority - and when that father exceeds the bounds of God's law, say by commanding his children to steal he has exceeded his authority and become a tyrant. Any command, therefore, that blatantly contradicts God's laws, is what the UCMJ calls "an illegal order" and must be refused by those whom it is given to.
No Father should command his children to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able. No Magistrate should command the people to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able. At one time it was taken for granted even in this nation, that while no one denomination would be established, certainly the law of God, which was perspicuous, and which had informed and formed the skeleton of all Western law, would inevitably foundational to our own legal code - if only in the way that its fundamental precepts had informed the development of civil law through the ages. For instance, adultery was long a crime in the Western world not only because of its detrimental influence on society, but because it was condemned by the law of God. These truths, you shall not steal, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, were once thought to be so "self-evident" that there was no issue of interpretation necessary, and certainly nothing that would require granting one denomination predominance. You see, postmodernism hadn't yet made its advent and it was thought that anyone with a grain of common sense could understand "You Shall not Steal" well enough to base actual civil laws upon it.
Anyway, in the sermon I stressed that as the church it is not our duty nor our right to frame a constitution for the government, and that we are to be about the work of salvation and that we will never be successful in telling people to "be good" until they have a new heart, and that pastors are not legislators or politicians by calling and that it is not our job to misuse our call to press for legislation. However, Christians are still citizens called upon to act in civil society according to what the bible teaches (and we all act according to our beliefs, even those who call themselves atheists) Additionally as Christians we believe that just as Parents must govern the family according to God's will and Pastors must preach only what is in God's word, Magistrates should also govern according to what the law of God states. Thus when they try to fundamentally recraft marriage, dramatically altering it from the creation ordinance, then they have failed to act according to their calling in their own sphere.
It seems to me, that our Constitution was designed to give religous freedom by not mandating any specific interpretation of God's will. So that my interpretation of God's will is just as valid as yours.
I would defend your right under our constitution to worship as your conscience tells you to do so.
In fact, that is expressly what the confession, which is intended to be merely a summary of what is taught in scripture, explicitly says:
"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance."
[Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23.3]
I'd say that the above is actually a more explicit defense of the "sphere separation" of church and state, and the principle of religious liberty than exists in the Constitution.
However, nothing in the constitution states that the magistrate shall assume and act as though there was no God and no moral law or natural law and that all of his enactments shall be made solely on the absolute assumption of atheism and legal positivism. In fact, I would argue that such a worldview establishes the minority religion of secular humanism and makes its interpretations normative. Modern Secular Humanism is not neutral, neither does it have the endorsement of the Constitution. It's assumption for instance, that there is no God and no absolutes, runs counter to two foundational assumptions in our founding documents.
It is not a matter of "religious interpretation" of one denomination over all others to say simply that natural law dictates that the legal definition of marriage is to be between one woman and one man. For almost 200 years Americans never found that simple declaration to be an interference of the church in the affairs of the state, rather everyone accepted that that was an absolute, that it was simply the correct answer to the question what is marriage?
The difference is that we now live in the age of legal positivism, and will accept no absolute truths save the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths and so we feel comfortable saying "Marriage shall be whatever the courts declare it to be."
Under this assumption not only marriage, but every fundamental structure in our society, everything that we once felt to be part of the warp and woof of society is up for grabs to whoever controls the court. Want to lower the age of consent to 13? Have at it. Want to make the state the primary guardians over all children and the parents only authorized caregivers? Go ahead. Literally, under this system, the only impediment to whatever change you want is the gang of nine, so control over them becomes the trump card in all matters. Chair, forgive me, but I don't believe that is what Washington, Madison, Hamilton and co. envisaged in their wildest nightmares.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Under this assumption not only marriage, but every fundamental structure in our society, everything that we once felt to be part of the warp and woof of society is up for grabs to whoever controls the court. Want to lower the age of consent to 13? Have at it. Want to make the state the primary guardians over all children and the parents only authorized caregivers? Go ahead. Literally, under this system, the only impediment to whatever change you want is the gang of nine, so control over them becomes the trump card in all matters. Chair, forgive me, but I don't believe that is what Washington, Madison, Hamilton and co. envisaged in their wildest nightmares.
I respect that you may feel that is a danger, but I really think that it's hand wringing over a non-starter.
If the specific concern you just raised were to be accepted, then you would, by definition, have to accept my concern that: Giving preferential treatment to christians when shaping the law will eventually result in transforming our nation to a formal theocracy. Want to make it so that non-christians cannot hold government jobs? Go ahead. Want to make it so that synagogues and mosques are no longer granted the tax exempt status that a christian church has? Go ahead. Want to mandate an oath to follow god as part of getting a drivers license? Go ahead. Want to enforce the sabbath and prevent all businesses from operating? Go ahead.
The points you raise, Seagoon, are as likely (if not less so) then the ones I just did, the difference is, you move from being on the offense to the defense. If you choose to disregard the validity of the concerns that I, an atheist raise at the spectre of a United Christian States of America, then you are compelled to set aside your own reservations about an imagined 'moral vacuum that nature would, by necessity, fill with the inequities and savage animalistic sins of secular society' that exists only in the imaginations of the christian right.
Regards,
cb
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you choose to disregard the validity of the concerns that I, an atheist raise at the spectre of a United Christian States of America...
This is more out of curiousity than anything else, but perhaps it will assist in future discussions. But let us just say that I, Seagoon - Andy Webb, were given power to make changes to the government of the United States. What changes that you believe I would make are you afraid of? Which ones would dramatically and deleteriously affect your life and make the USA an awful place for you and yours to live in? How would it personally negatively impact you and so on.
I would open the question to anyone who would like to answer.
- SEAGOON
-
Bah... we're not afraid of you. It's those "other" right wing religious nutbags that we worry about. ;)
-
Yeah, I'll agree with Sandman for the mostpart. It's not the specific 'what would hurt me now' that I'm worried about so much as it is the slippery slope away from the things that make this country, and liberty, so strong. Our constitutional structure is designed so that large scale, long term change is supposed to be hard, so that the momentary flashes of public outrage have time to gel into something real instead of just tilting at windmills. In that sense, I'd hate for any one person (even if I agreed with them) to have the power you describe, because in our country, power should be kept out of the hands of a person and firmly in the hands of the people. My biggest concern about what you specifically might do is not aimed at any specific evils I'm worried about, or things done with malicious intent. It's the unintended side effects I worry about. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and whatnot.
Right back atcha, Seagoon, if I, Ben Hallert, were given the same authority, are there any specific things you'd be worried I'd do that you'd be afraid of? I'm an atheist, but I don't eat babies, despite what you may have heard growing up.
-
:(
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
This is more out of curiousity than anything else, but perhaps it will assist in future discussions. But let us just say that I, Seagoon - Andy Webb, were given power to make changes to the government of the United States. What changes that you believe I would make are you afraid of? Which ones would dramatically and deleteriously affect your life and make the USA an awful place for you and yours to live in? How would it personally negatively impact you and so on.
I would open the question to anyone who would like to answer.
Good evening Seagoon,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand this has been going on for many pages, but if it makes you feel any better, I rushed home after work hoping to see an excellent response and I was not disapointed. I know how much effort I put in to my posts, and if you are the same then I want to thank you...the gift of your time is much appreciated. I'm sure you have many better things to do than to chat on a forum to a bunch of heathens.
I really want to thank you for this question. It means that you want to understand our fears and hopefully you will respect them.
My fear is that you would inact into law all the moral requirements set out in the Bible...and especially the 1st Commandment. And even more so, I fear that other Christians would then see fit to inact the punishments dictated in the Bible.
Originally posted by Seagoon
No Magistrate should command the people to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able.
And what of the 1st Commandmant vs the 1st Amendment. Which takes precident? You said that you would defend my right to worship as I see fit. What if that meant that I would worship Shiva...or Satan (which you may believe I do passively since I don't worship Jahovah/Yahweh)...or not worship a diety at all. If you not only allow me that freedom, but defend my right, you run smack-dab into failing to restrain me from breaking God's #1 law.
This is what I fear: that you may feel it is your manifest right to restrain me from breaking any of God's laws because you are doing it for a greater good...that you are looking out for my best interest. (And I absolutely agree with many of those laws...but I will not support some of those laws because the infringe on individual rights rather than protect them.)
Yeah...that authoritarian attitude terrifies me. I do not want you or any Christian to take this the wrong way. But that kind of thought process is exactly like the Taliban...no difference at all.
-
He's lying Seagoon... I saw him eating a baby just the other day, with horseradish sauce no less.
Who the #$^$# puts horseradish sauce on babies anyway?!
By the way Seagoon, I also understand you are probably sick and tired of this thread, but I'd just like to say again that I admire you greatly, even if our world views are somewhat different. I find you to be extraordinarily gifted at expressing your point of view, which is refreshing considering how poorly most 'conservatives' (I use the term loosely) express themselves.
Although you are kind of preaching to the choir on this one, since I also don't think that gays should have the "right" to a marriage sanctified under God. I do think they have every right to all the civil benefits and responsibilities that comes with a "committed relationship" which is why I'd be in favor of civil unions for gays, and nonreligious straight people for that matter.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
He's lying Seagoon... I saw him eating a baby just the other day, with horseradish sauce no less.
Who the #$^$# puts horseradish sauce on babies anyway?!
SHHHHHHH!
BTW...it was tartar sauce...when they are that young they taste kinda fishy.;)
-
Seagoon,
I also wanted to offer up an indication that the religous right would not protect my right to worship as I see fit. Here is a quote from Justice Antonin Scalia in his decent opinion on the recent 10c case:
With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.[/b]
If the 7 million Americans identified as polythiests, belivers in unconcerned deities and athiests can be Constitutionally disregarded, then our persecution by the Christians is not far behind.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
3. Another popular position, and the one I subscribe to, isn't so much with SSM directly, but the manner in which it was forced upon the voters through judicial activism.
This is a red herring. There is no such thing as judicial activism. There is judicial review of existing law. That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.
"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with. By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist. They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.
The Judiciary cannot militate for or against a position, doesn't happen. They only determine based on existing and accepted law whether or not a law as written is coherent within the dataset in which it is intended to reside.
Secondly, a majority of judges in this nation were appointed by GOP presidents. That is to say, the judciiary is already a conservative institution in terms of who populates it. Judicial review is a conservative act if you understand what that word means.
The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless. Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.
Sakai
-
Christian marrige, Muslim marrige, Hindu marrige, Jewish marrige ect ect should be defined by the church.
The legal rights of a "registered" couple should be defined by the countries legal institution, the state.
The legal rights of all couples straight or gay SHOULD be equal.
The rights to marrige should be defined by each church individual with no influence of the state.
Whats interesting in this debate in the US is that US is based on separation of state and church yet this debate does nothing but mix the church and the state.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Sakai
This is a red herring. There is no such thing as judicial activism. There is judicial review of existing law. That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.
"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with. By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist. They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.
The Judiciary cannot militate for or against a position, doesn't happen. They only determine based on existing and accepted law whether or not a law as written is coherent within the dataset in which it is intended to reside.
Secondly, a majority of judges in this nation were appointed by GOP presidents. That is to say, the judciiary is already a conservative institution in terms of who populates it. Judicial review is a conservative act if you understand what that word means.
The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless. Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.
Sakai
It's convenient to dismiss an argument as a 'red herring' without knowing anything about the discussion taking place, as you obviously don't.
Here's a suggestion: go and research how SSM came to be legal in MA. Then, after you've realized it was judicial activism headed by a SCCJ with a pre-established agenda, you can come back and apologize.
I'll give you a head start. Look at CJ Marshall's active fund raising for the GL movement (which is against her oath of office), then look at her redefinition of MA marriage laws. She didn't strike them down, she rewrote them.
Her judicial activism is the direct cause of the bill before the MA legislature now to remove her.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Christian marrige, Muslim marrige, Hindu marrige, Jewish marrige ect ect should be defined by the church.
The legal rights of a "registered" couple should be defined by the countries legal institution, the state.
The legal rights of all couples straight or gay SHOULD be equal.
The rights to marrige should be defined by each church individual with no influence of the state.
Whats interesting in this debate in the US is that US is based on separation of state and church yet this debate does nothing but mix the church and the state.
Tex
depends on who's arguing and the position.
I happen to agree with you. I also think you should be able to have the same binding contract with your brother, grandmother, or best friend.
That being said, it's the manner in which this was served that has caused enough opposition to add amendments to state Constitutions which will make it next to impossible to get anything legalized.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
This is a red herring. There is no such thing as judicial activism. There is judicial review of existing law. That is why people want to make laws outlawing same sex marriage because nothing thus far precludes it under the constitution.
"Judicial activism" was a concept created solely by right wing fruitcakes to have a rallying cry against decisions they did not agree with. By creating a label and sneering it out every chance they got it became something they could hang their hatred and political desire on but it actually as defined by themselves simply does not exist. They cry about review of laws because they do not have the political capital to write and pass the laws they want.
The term judicial activism is a red herring argument and is simply a coined phrase for the GOP to get uptight about, in the real world it is frankly meaningless. Thus, when someone says that is the argument that carries teh most freight with them it is a red flag indicating their opinions are formed by others and are not the product of careful and studious review of the facts.
Sakai
Beautifully stated.
I'm sick and tired of hearing this phrase. And when I hear a politician say it, it always reminds me of a little child having a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Want to make the state the primary guardians over all children and the parents only authorized caregivers?
- SEAGOON
Sadly this is already the case.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It's convenient to dismiss an argument as a 'red herring' without knowing anything about the discussion taking place, as you obviously don't.
Here's a suggestion: go and research how SSM came to be legal in MA. Then, after you've realized it was judicial activism headed by a SCCJ with a pre-established agenda, you can come back and apologize.
I'll give you a head start. Look at CJ Marshall's active fund raising for the GL movement (which is against her oath of office), then look at her redefinition of MA marriage laws. She didn't strike them down, she rewrote them.
Her judicial activism is the direct cause of the bill before the MA legislature now to remove her.
In other words, "judicial activism" is a state problem.
-
Here we go round in circles...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
In other words, "judicial activism" is a state problem.
Depends on the circumstances. In this case it was. The SC didn't strike down a law because it was unConstitutional, they changed a sitting law to suit the pre-established agenda of the sitting CJ.
Even if you support the same cause, doesn't that bother you?
-
The God I worship teaches to love the sinner, hate the sin. That being said, my opposition the legal recognition of same-sex marriages that doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals. Many, many Christians feel this way.
That's enough outta me for now. I'll be happy to elaborate on my point privately for any who are actually interested.
-
Originally posted by Silat
If you love your brother it is none of my business. Get it?
Yes, I get your point. The problem is that if this is made "law", it will not be long before groups such as the ACLU petition the courts to force schools to teach the homosexual lifestlye in sex education classes (disguised of course as "tolerance"). Since my taxes go toward these schools, I have a big problem with cramming this choice that some have made down childrens throats.
I don't care what people do..."it's none of my business" to quote you, as long as it does not affect me and society as a whole. When it crosses the line and is made a "law", and is imposed on all of society, it becomes some of my business.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes, I get your point. The problem is that if this is made "law", it will not be long before groups such as the ACLU petition the courts to force schools to teach the homosexual lifestlye in sex education classes (disguised of course as "tolerance"). Since my taxes go toward these schools, I have a big problem with cramming this choice that some have made down childrens throats.
I don't care what people do..."it's none of my business" to quote you, as long as it does not affect me and society as a whole. When it crosses the line and is made a "law", and is imposed on all of society, it becomes some of my business.
It's already being done here in Massachusetts. Pamphlets were made available to middle schoolers describing the safest way to enjoy "fisting" and where to go in Boston to pick up guys.
My tax dollars pay for that.
At least until the Amendment goes up for a vote.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes, I get your point. The problem is that if this is made "law", it will not be long before groups such as the ACLU petition the courts to force schools to teach the homosexual lifestlye in sex education classes (disguised of course as "tolerance"). Since my taxes go toward these schools, I have a big problem with cramming this choice that some have made down childrens throats.
I don't care what people do..."it's none of my business" to quote you, as long as it does not affect me and society as a whole. When it crosses the line and is made a "law", and is imposed on all of society, it becomes some of my business.
Applause!
What he said. :)
-
When it comes to schools...
Schools should teach about human differencess... one of the single biggest human characteristics is that we are all individually different. Its not just looks, religion and sexuallity its in each and every single aspect of every thing we do. There is no human that is identical to another and that is what makes us the individuals we are.
Schools should teach this and teach to respect this. Through understanding differences of individuals and how different cultures affect these differences so much conflict can be avoided.
Ultimatly we all should respect our differences... that would really rock.. but just understanding them would do so much good for all the societies in the world and for the world it self...
So should schools teach about homosexuality? Definatly. But not from the perspective "how men shag and where to pick em up" but from the perspective of understanding sexual differences between people. Just like differences in religions, cultures, human thinking, ect ect ect...
Tex
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes, I get your point. The problem is that if this is made "law", it will not be long before groups such as the ACLU petition the courts to force schools to teach the homosexual lifestlye in sex education classes (disguised of course as "tolerance"). Since my taxes go toward these schools, I have a big problem with cramming this choice that some have made down childrens throats.
I don't care what people do..."it's none of my business" to quote you, as long as it does not affect me and society as a whole. When it crosses the line and is made a "law", and is imposed on all of society, it becomes some of my business.
Well let us just take away the churches tax exempt status. Then you and they can continue your fight to change law to keep persecuting one group.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
The God I worship teaches to love the sinner, hate the sin.
Ive never meet anyone who actually lived up to that standard.
Doesnt your god tell you not to judge? To love all men? To be tolerant?
And the phrase "Hate the sin" seems off to me.
God teaches Hate?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ive never meet anyone who actually lived up to that standard.
Doesnt your god tell you not to judge? To love all men? To be tolerant?
And the phrase "Hate the sin" seems off to me.
God teaches Hate?
He doesn't have to judge. God tells him what is or isn't a sin.
-
I kind of think gays should be able to marry. However, we have to keep a close eye on militant gays who have a political agenda and attempt to infiltrate our school systems to gain access to children in order to further gay political goals. There is a big difference between informing kids about human sexuality at an appropriate age, and exposing them to homosexual propaganda. See below
http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glsen.htm
-
Maybe you should think twice about have enforced public schooling?
Just a thought
Instead you go after teaching? Why shouldn't children get an education about such things? Maybe they won't be so damn confused if they ARE gay, lesbiean, trassexual , whatever?
(sarcasim)
I never saw anyone at my high school get crap for seeming a little 'light in the loafers' :rolleyes:
No, gay's aren't opressed ..... they don't get beat up, then taken to court if they don't goto school
Ya that's a good enviorment to raise a stable induvidual. (/sarcasim dripping)
saw such BS in my highschool..... what exactly are YOU argureing for?
the master race? with no gays? no blacks too?
denying something YOU don't like won't make it go away..... maybe you should argue that YOUR money can be speant on private school vouchers. SO then YOU have some choice.
_____________________________ ______
One last point.....on the overall point........
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-church-gay-marriage_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Under freedom of religion... how can you even consider outlawing it?
(http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/b5790.gif)
-
Deleted
Rules #4 and 5.
-
is that supposed to be an agrument Martlet???
is all you can do is throw hate? and troll?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm sorry you were picked on in high school. Maybe the teachers should teach self-defense instead of homosexuality?
What kind of argument is that? I'd be a lot more impressed with an argument based on merits instead of ad hominems.
On the other hand, if you are representative of the opposing view side, then I... I guess the discussion has really wrapped up, eh? I've had easy wins, but this was unexpectedly so.
-
It was just a matter of time before he showed his true color. If you press a bigot long enough, his true designs will manifest.
Kind of like those guys who think the KKK flag should fly over the city of my birth. If you press them long enough sooner or later they'll say something like. "Did you know that at the current rate by the year XXXX white people will be a minority?"
-
Deleted
Rules #4 and 5
-
How did you know I was talking about you ? :lol
-
Deleted
Rule 5
-
Martlet why are you allowed to insult other members of this o club?
Looks like someone wasn't smart enough to make it through the users guide.
-
I responded with exactly the same merit your post contained. Trolling hate.
If that's what you see, I pity you.
_____________________________ __
Still won't argure the main point?
no doubt becuase you can't
It would be unamerican to argure that freedom of religion should not be respected.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-church-gay-marriage_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
I think your stuck.
-
Deleted
Rules #4 and 5
-
so your saying that the state view should be forced on religions?
-
Originally posted by Manedew
so your saying that the state view should be forced on religions?
Of course the state view is forced on religions to a point. The church can't act outside the law.
You didn't answer my question. Did I put you on the run already? That was easy.
-
Have you answered any of mine?
seperation of church and state.... frankly .. I think the state should stay away from things they can't scientifically define, like the sexes.
but you never answered tho's questions.
so why would you answer any I have now.
-
Deleted
Rules #4 and 5
-
See Rule #4
-
Deleted and Locked.
Rules 4 and 5
-
Forget bible, consider children.
Haven't read whole thread, but on the animal topic, Humans are the "only" species in the world that have long term same sex relations. Male dogs have rub sessions, but this is virtually unknown amongst all known female species. Humans are sentient, animale are impulsive, instictive. Totally different hence irrelevant.
Gay Marriage: Who’s Minding the Children?
Part 5 of 6
According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn't say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it's sound science.
"In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."
(To view some of this evidence, go to the Family Research Web site and read the report entitled "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples." The report lists 56 such studies, including research done by the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Department of Justice, University of Chicago and peer-reviewed publications that appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Social Services Research, and the American Sociological Review.)
Exposure to both sexes is vitally important to the developmental needs of children because it helps them to form their sexual identity, but there are many more areas where children are affected by the parenting of a mother and father. Researcher Henry Biller, who has written several books on the subject, explains some of the key areas:
"Even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant ... Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating ... Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities ... The father and mother offer the child two different kinds of persons to learn about as well as providing separate sources of love and support. ..."
According to science, there are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops.
But aside from these developmental and psychological effects, there are also significant peripheral issues that come with same-sex parents that place additional risks upon children. For instance, the ramifications of the health risks outlined in Part 3 of this series and concerns about the stability of the relationship.
The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships.
This is why Satinover stresses that society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles.
And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. "And they're going to do it without any impact studies," Satinover said.
The same courts that demand multi-million dollar environmental studies before allowing someone to so much as dig a hole in the ground "are going to massively reshape the social landscape" without a single study being conducted. And it will do so in spite of mountains of empirical evidence showing the negative effects on society that occur when the family structure breaks down.
The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn't just create a second societal structure, it actually "smuggles into existence ... two radically different social structures," Satinover explained.
There are same-sex marriages between two women and between two men. "They have utterly different demographics, life spans, health and behavioral characteristics, and sexual behaviors. ... They are as different from one another as men are from women. If you were to create gay marriage, you end up with three totally different marital entities." We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children.
"This third point ties the first two together," Satinover said. "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children."
What's worse, the government "is deliberately setting out to create two new and different classes of damaging situations. ... In spite of a mountain of evidence staring it in the face that this is surely going to have devastating effects on children."
Some years back, Satinover served as an expert witness against same-sex adoption in the Florida case, Amer v. Johnson. "The state of Florida wanted me to argue that the reason the ban should be upheld was because homosexuals made bad parents and I refused to do that. I said in my testimony, if two homosexuals wanted to adopt a child, I would have no objection to it if one of them was a man and one of them was a woman."
What mattered more was that the man and woman, homosexual or not, were willing to act contrary to their own desires in making the sacrifice to provide a stable home for the child. "What counts is the willingness to put one's own desires in second place. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, per se, it's the fact that if two men or two women insist on adopting a child, they thereby prove by their insistence that they know nothing about the needs of the child and are so selfish and ignorant of what children need, that by their very insistence they prove themselves unfit to be parents."
The Florida courts decided in his favor.
Even though science clearly supports her position, the Catholic Church was vilified last summer when it issued a similar opinion in the document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." In it, the Church clearly stated its concern for the effects of gay marriage on society in general, and children in particular.
"The absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Church cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as asserting that the best interests of the child should be put first in these situations.
Meanwhile, the case for gay marriage continues to go forward and opens many new doors that most of us would prefer to keep closed. "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalize polygamy and polyamory (group marriage)," writes Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. "Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals ... in every conceivable combination of male and female."
Legalized group marriage is already well underway. There has been a rash of lawsuits filed by polygamists, and same-sex couples are already suing for the right to include in their marriage a third party who was used as either sperm donor or surrogate mother to produce a child.
Even though many of the people who are fueling this push for legalized gay marriage are acting out of genuine compassion, their sentiments are sadly misdirected. "All they can think about are the rights of the adults," Satinover said, "and the kids can go hang themselves."