No argument there, I tell all the single women I know to remember the motto "all men are scum" and they'll do OK. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxaprilwine
|
No argument there, I tell all the single women I know to remember the motto "all men are scum" and they'll do OK. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxaprilwine
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Exactly! I wish I could give you a greenie Tal, because I couldn't agree more. :D
The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.
As for churches, if one church decides that they won't marry people of the same sex then they can choose not to; however, if another church chooses to marry people of the same sex because their interpretation of the bible is different then they can.
Separation of church and state; and freedom of religion.
The evangelical or fundementalist Christian's do not hold the monopoly on the truth as there are dozens of different Christian denominations who interpret the bible differently and who is to say that their interpretation should trump other religions as well or those without a defined religion?
Bingo ,back to the sensible solution offered by Steve and myself in the early responses to this thred.Quote:
The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.
I think I also offered that solution on page one of this thread :P
Is there another solution, or is that the only one you have, because that one was already rejected. Now what?
First of all I think that are you sterotyping ALL christians. That we all hate homosexuality and hate the people who choose the lifestyle. Yes, here are Christians out there who choose not to talk to, be near or love a homosexual person. I personally abhore Christians who persecute homosexuality and judge them... who are they to judge? Their anger and hate makes us all look bad. We, as Christians are supposed to love everyone. God did not only love the Christians he loves the non-believers too.
I think as a Christian, you choose to live a certain way. You choose to live by God's laws and life guidelines. So in that aspect, I do believe that I also have a right to choose to protect what I believe is right. Granted, it's my choice, my opinion but I still have a right to it and to vote for it. Just like people who believe that gay marriage has a right, they choose to support it and vote for it.
I find that so many people want me to be open minded, but no one wants to be open minded to my beliefs, especially if they are Christian.
Open mindedness goes both ways. Why can't you be opened minded to my beliefs too?
Hello u:
Our founding fathers made that decision long ago, and we don't have a right to vote on it. It's like your right to own a gun. We can't vote that right out of existence because that right is guaranteed to you in the Constitution.
By that same token, and by that same document, gay people have the right to marry, if YOU have a right to marry, and you do.
You may have another opinion. You're welcome to it, and you're welcome to voice here. But, to DO something about it is abhorrent. We're not a nation that excludes people from participating in the political process. We're a nation that celebrates INCLUSION. That's the American way.
Fortunately, it's also WRITTEN into the Constitution.
excon
I don't have a problem with your beliefs, so long as you don't expect everyone else to live by them.Quote:
Originally Posted by uvware
Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Very true NK. That's where we run into trouble with the issue of Gay marriage. This shouldn't be about religion, it should be about their rights as human beings.
That's kind of where I'm on the fence. I don't think all priests should be forced to be allowed to marry gay people in their church. Their religion is based on knowledge 2000+ years ago and I don't expect them to change. I do believe of course that a gay couple should have all the rights that a heterosexual couple does. Now where does this thinking leave the gay couple who want to be Christians? I don't know but I suspect they would be ostracized by what I read here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
NK, that is unequivocally a bunch of bullsh*t.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yes the Christian beliefs are old, we cannot expect them to change, but not all churches feel this way, not all Christians do from what I've read here.
Can we find a middle ground? I don't know.
If being married in a church is important to a gay couple, then we're crossing a different line. Can we force the Christian community to open their doors to gay couples? Well, it's always been my understanding that Christians are supposed to open the door to anyone who wants to enter, but I guess that I was reading between the lines.
Bottom line is that gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's a basic human right, or it should be.
If we ostrasize one group of people based on their lifestyle, who do we go after next? When do we draw the line? When they go after Christians and their way of life?
It's what I get when I read the religious postings on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's what you assume, NK. There is a difference between desiring others to live your beliefs and "expecting" them to do so, or as you guys are fond of saying "imposing" our beliefs on everyone. I for one have never "expected" anyone here to believe or live as I do, in fact I'll defend your right not to. "Expecting" or "imposing" goes against everything Christianity is about, and it's no more an affront for Christians to desire and work toward certain societal standards than it is for non-Christians to do so. In reading these boards it would be just as easy to conclude many of you don't think we should have a say, so who is doing the imposing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This is a red herring/straw man. No church can be forced to marry anyone. In fact, churches turn heterosexuals down for all sorts of reasons. No reason they can't refuse gays, as well. That's part of what makes them churches. They can discriminate in ways that other institutions are not allowed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Allowing marriage for gays would NOT force churches to marry gays. Some churches already do marry gays, and they could continue if they chose, but otherwise anyone can get married in a civil ceremony, just getting a marriage license at city hall or similar.
A church is not required for a legal marriage. A church wedding is a RELIGIOUS ceremony only.
That's a very fine, gray line isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In your mind perhaps. We all want things, most of us don't "expect" them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Desire: 1: to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desire success> 2 a: to express a wish for
Expect: 4 a: to consider probable or certain <expect to be forgiven> <expect that things will improve> b: to consider reasonable, due, or necessary <expected hard work from the students> c: to consider bound in duty or obligated <they expect you to pay your bills>
There is no gray area between the two words.
I always feel vindicated when my favorite lib agrees with the position I take :
Camille Paglia on Obama choosing Hillary as Secretary of State, and more | SalonQuote:
Another hot-button issue: After California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, gay activists have launched a program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons. I thought we'd gotten over the adolescent tantrum phase of gay activism, typified by ACT UP's 1989 invasion of St. Patrick's Cathedral, where the communion host was thrown on the floor. Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;s...ecn1=1;etm1=0; http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/...rge.html@Right
I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past.
My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, http://www.amazon.com/Vamps-Tramps-Essays-Camille-Paglia/dp/0679751203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228881969&sr=8-1") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.
In their displeasure at the California vote, gay activists have fomented animosity among African-Americans who voted for Proposition 8 and who reject any equivalence between racism and homophobia. Do gays really want to split the Democratic coalition?
I completely agree with a hard-hitting piece by the British gay activist Mark Simpson (which was forwarded to me by Glenn Belverio), "Let's Be Civil: Marriage Isn't the End of the Rainbow."
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008...f-the-rainbow/
Simpson, who has been called "a skinhead Oscar Wilde," is famous among other things for a riveting 2002 Salon article that put the term "metrosexual" into world circulation. I appreciate Simpson's candor about how marriage is a very poor fit with the actual open lifestyle of so many gay men, which is far more radical. Marriage may be desirable for some gay men and women, but at what cost? Activists should have focused instead on removing all impediments to equality in civil unions -- such as the unjust denial of Social Security benefits to the surviving partner in gay relationships.
(on page 3 )
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM. |