For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
|
For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
Isn't the denial of God a sin, just like homosexuality is a sin?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Okay, wait a minute.
In MY interpretation of the Bible, multiple partners/polygamy (Just look at how much trouble would have been saved if Sarah hadn't given her handmaiden to Abraham, or if Jacob hadn't married sisters!) and incest (it's always amazing to me that Sodom and Gamorrah are brought up AGAINST homosexuality, but that Lot's daughters weren't REALLY punished for their incest [and technically, really, fornication--they weren't married to their father]) seem to be okay.
Really, what it comes down to for a whole bunch of people is that the Bible was written by a bunch of men, and put together in the order it is in, with the specific books that are in it, for political reasons. There are gospels that have been found that tell the story of Jesus completely differently, and other books of the Bible (especially the New Testament) that have been left out completely because they don't jive with the rest of the Bible.
The OTHER side of it, for me, anyway, is that to me your god isn't a valid rule maker. I don't believe in Him, therefore I don't have to live by His rules---especially when the government and Constitution make the rules for this country, not any ONE religion.
It doesn't really matter how people feel on this, though. At some point, it's going to be ruled un-Constitutional to have one set of rules for one sort of people (civil unions ONLY) and a different (and maybe considered better?) set of rules for other sorts of people (marriage). It will come down to what I've already said in order to pacify everyone: EVERY couple has the right to have a civil union, and that will be the ONLY form of "marriage" the government can recognize for tax breaks, legal issues, etc. And EVERY church will have the right to decide who they can religiously marry, though a religious "marriage" will be recognized by only the church without the accompanying civil union to make it "civilly" legal.
Because mormons are the biggest funders of the campaign,Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
sourceQuote:
"The site attributes $15 million in donations to Mormons, or nearly half the Yes on 8 war chest in a state where Mormons make up 2% of the population."
Sure, but I have yet to mention the word sin, I’ve only spoken of marriage the way God intended. And I believe God’s plan is what God intended for everyone, believer or not and regardless of the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Hello again, Steve:
I think our founders had it right when they determined what God intended, "... 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's just what I believe. If you're interested in STRICT interpretations, I don't know how you, as a patriotic AMERICAN, could believe it says anything other than what it does.
excon
I never said anything about strict interpretations did I? Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Let's see if we can elevate this argument to its core issues. You, like any good right winger, keep on throwing up red herrings.
As you and I have discussed many times on these pages, the Constitution doesn't list rights. I've told you why dozens of times. You have the right to own a fork too, but you won't find that right, LISTED either. So, you have to look at the words, and what they actually mean...
What I know about the founders is they spoke of the lofty principals the country was founded upon. We have not yet reached them. We may never. In truth, the founders DIDN'T mean ALL men when they used those words... But, when we realized that women were, indeed, part and parcel of the words "all men", we fixed that mistake. We did the same thing when we realized that black people were really part of all. So we fixed that too.
I don't know who the founders meant when they said ALL men. I know what it MEANS. It means that EVERY one of us has the same rights EVERY other one of us has. It matters not, that you're gay, black or some other member of the subculture that I'm sure you'll find...
THAT'S the America I live in. It's the America that makes me proud. It's the America I went to war to fight for. It's the America that I'll die for again, if need be.
But, I'm not proud of an America that denies rights to certain segments of society based upon religious beliefs. I didn't fight for a country that separates its people into those worthy of rights, and those who're not. I'm not proud of people who want to LIST rights for the specific purpose of denying them to others.
The Constitution says ALL men. I happen to believe it.
That's ALL I have to say on the subject... Until next time.
excon
Not gay marriage, just marriage. Marrige is a right. For everyone. Well, it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And we have repeatedly offered to compromise. Isn't that also part of what makes America great?
Ok, YOU call your marriage a "civil union" and let the gays call theirs "marriages". That's compromise too.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
How is it a compromise to forbid someone from the same right you are afforded, even if in name only?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
EXACTLY!!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You are asking those of us who believe that ALL MEN are created equal to give up THAT principle for YOUR principle.
The difference is that OUR principle is based on the laws of this country. YOUR principle is based on a SPECIFIC religion.
Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".
Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.
If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.
Where have the laws and constitution of this land historically granted equal rights to relationships?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
It had to happen, the discussion has digressed into name calling. That's another reason we'll never agree, you guys can't seem to restrain yourselves from accusations or suggestions of bigotry, comparisons to slavery, torture, witch burnings and implying we seek a theocracy. That's old, it's ridiculous, it's not constructive - it's bullsh** plain and simple.Quote:
Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".
Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.
If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.
I figured given enough time the conversation would degenerate. This is not a new conversation ;I've had it before and see where it leads. Given the choice I will drift towards a hard line position since everyone else seems to be . For now my powder is dry .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You're trying your best to spin it... But, I ain't going to let you. It's not difficult. I KNOW you get it. I don't know WHY your religious half blinds you...
"Relationships" don't have rights. If you look, you won't find relationships LISTED. However, I must remind you again, the Constitution DOESN'T list rights.
INDIVIDUALS have rights. If YOU have a right that the state bestowed upon YOU because you are married, I, and EVERYBODY else, has that SAME right.
It says so, very plainly in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, where it says, ".... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, I ask you to explain why this DOESN'T pertain to the discussion at hand?
excon
Hello again, Steve:
I think we can wrap this up... I'm going to answer for you...
You're going to say that a homosexual DOES have the same right you do, to marry a person of the opposite sex...
And, of course, you'll have missed the whole thing...
excon
Um... hello? Did you READ what I wrote?
I wrote that a country RULING by religion DOES, historically speaking, degenerate to torture, witch burnings, etc.
If you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on LAW, then you ARE seeking a form of theocracy. If your reason for not allowing someone EQUAL rights under law because of their sexual orientation, then you ARE prejudiced.
Historically, the people opposed to giving equal rights to a group of people have justified it by using God and the Bible. Blacks could be slaves because it was their punishment because Ham looked at Noah naked and drunk and laughed at him. Witches could be burned because women shouldn't have that much power--and because the Bible SAID so.
I use these examples as comparisons because they have HAPPENED. They are situations where someone HAS used religion/God to justify doing something that isn't really a very nice thing to do.
What I would like to know is this: How would it hurt YOU to allow to people who love each other to get married?
But who actually voted for the measure:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
70% of blacks voted for the measure - probably 90% of whom voted for Obama-
So where is the indignation by these gay protesters or by EX?
I think the radical gay groups
1] know Mormons, unlike Catholics, are not used to being targeted by gay radicals
2] it is politically correct to target Mormons but not blacks and latinos.
Please ex, don't answer for me... that was nowhere near my answer. Secondly, the inalienable right the founders determined is the "pursuit" of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness which is what the left seems to think it means. And no, I haven't missed the whole thing, it's just that you guys aren't going to stop until we see it your way and that's no compromise. Now is that your last, last word in this for now? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I spose it is, cause separate but equal, ain't equal. You either have a right, or you don't. There ain't no in between.
excon
Come on Synnen, please, that's almost as bad as implying I might be a bigot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I'm not trying to impose my religious beliefs on anyone, I stand for current and historical laws that determine a marriage is between one man and one woman. Trying to force me to accept that a homosexual marriage is equal to a heterosexual marriage, now that's imposing someone else's beliefs on me. I believe my first argument to this was the two types of unions can never be equal so why call them equal? Face it, two gays cannot do everything a man and a woman can do. You can pretend adoption or surrogacy is the same thing, you can pretend one is the husband/dad and the other the wife/mother, you can pretend it's a traditional, natural family but it isn't. If we're offering the next best thing, equal rights and privileges, why do you insist we call it something it isn't? How the heck does that make me prejudiced to offer equal rights and benefits - and even though hour constitution makes no such guarantee? If it did, why is there still a push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment?Quote:
I wrote that a country RULING by religion DOES, historically speaking, degenerate to torture, witch burnings, etc.
If you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on LAW, then you ARE seeking a form of theocracy. If your reason for not allowing someone EQUAL rights under law because of their sexual orientation, then you ARE prejudiced.
And that's exactly what I spoke to, in this day it's a ridiculous suggestion for this country. It's been used as a fear mongering tactic for the past 8 years by the left (something they supposedly don't do) over Bush's alleged plans for a theocracy (with our blessing and encouragement of course). It's stupid, asinine and damned offensive to use that line of "reasoning" toward us. It treats us as if we're some sort of vile, religious ogres that are less than human and does nothing to further a resolution. It's like the Pink Mafia and others out in California, targeting Mormons and every other person that exercised their right to vote their conscience with hateful protests, white powders in the mail, and who knows what other sort of intolerant vile acts. And you expect us to give our blessing to people like that?Quote:
Historically, the people opposed to giving equal rights to a group of people have justified it by using God and the Bible. Blacks could be slaves because it was their punishment because Ham looked at Noah naked and drunk and laughed at him. Witches could be burned because women shouldn't have that much power--and because the Bible SAID so.
I use these examples as comparisons because they have HAPPENED. They are situations where someone HAS used religion/God to justify doing something that isn't really a very nice thing to do.
It won't hurt me one bit, but certainly the decay in morals brought about largely by the liberal agenda has most definitely had a negative impact on society. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because am not budging any further from the compromise I've offered. If I move toward you I expect reciprocation, not domination.Quote:
What I would like to know is this: How would it hurt YOU to allow to people who love each other to get married?
Ex
This was in my first response to this posting .It is still true.
Quote:
The reason Brown V. Board of Education was overturned was that the court believed the facilities were unable to ever be truly equal. In this case, civil unions are held to be an acceptable alternative where they have been granted .
If we're looking at historical laws that a marriage is between one man and one woman, I'd like to hear from those cultures where even currently, there is a model for MORE than one woman with one man. Legally, in their societies. Some religions persist in marrying one man to more than one woman RELIGIOUSLY without having the benefit of LEGAL marriage. One man/one woman doesn't fly with me because there are too many examples of polygamy historically and currently for that to even come CLOSE to being an accurate position. And, as I said before, even in the Bible men had more than one wife.
As far as traditional, natural families---seriously? Well, then we'd better outlaw single parents, because THAT isn't traditional, and extended step-families with 3 kids from one marriage and two from another and 1 more from the current union, because THAT isn't exactly traditional, either. And really, while you're at it, let's make divorce illegal when there are kids involved, because having divorced parents that remarry and all that jazz isn't traditional or natural either.
And again comes the stereotype that raising children through adoption or surrogacy isn't natural--gee, thanks for telling me that adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent. I'll be sure to tell that to my daughter's adoptive parents, and make sure to tell my husband that since we're infertile together that we will NEVER have the same natural, traditional family that others have---I mean, it's just not NATURAL or TRADITIONAL to use infertility treatments, or adoption, or surrogacy to have a child. We should just give that dream up, never be parents, and take up mountain climbing because it's just not the same thing as being REAL, traditional, natural parents.
Frankly, I believe I was the first person in this thread to offer a reasonable compromise on the whole situation: NO ONE has a legal religious marriage. The only legal "marriage" is a civil union---for EVERYONE. If you want a religious ceremony, a marriage, then EVERYONE has to find a church willing to marry them.
No one gets the "right" to a religious ceremony, and to keep it equal, then everyone has to go through 2 ceremonies to say they're married. Otherwise they're just civil unionized.
I think that's a pretty fair compromise, honestly.
But they can be happy, and enjoy a tax break. Then can get a divorce just like any body else.Quote:
Face it, two gays cannot do everything a man and a woman can do.
I know a guy who even had his wife's baby.
The world is changing, and you can fight if you want, and not compromise at all.
That won't stop people from doing what they want. Maybe not in California, but they can in Connecticut.
I believe the compromise we offered makes that all possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Doctors can do lots of things now, but like I said, you can call something anything you want but it doesn't make it so.Quote:
I know a guy who even had his wife's baby.
The world is changing, and you can fight if you want, and not compromise at all.
Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.
— Aldous Huxley
I thought we were discussing the situation in the US, which historically and traditionally held to a marriage as between one man and one woman hasn’t it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
What is it with you guys twisting people’s words? This is what, the 6th time or so in one thread that people have twisted and/or put words in my mouth? Thanks everyone, but I can speak for myself. I spoke of ideals and intentions. It is I believe ideal for a child to have a married, committed, monogamous mother and a father, preferably living together in love. The idea that it doesn’t always turn out that way in no way invalidates the ideal or relegates the single mom, remarried couples or adoptive families to a lesser status. In the same vein I don’t believe civil unions with all the rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage discriminates, as different versions of “marriage” can never be equal – they’re different for crying out loud. But I never gave any hint that “adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent” or that there is only one legitimate type of family. But tell me, how does anyone become a parent without a male and a female? As far as I know there is no such thing as asexual reproduction in humans, so all you happy married gay parents out there, you had to have the other sex involved anyway, didn’t you?Quote:
As far as traditional, natural families---seriously? Well, then we'd better outlaw single parents, because THAT isn't traditional, and extended step-families with 3 kids from one marriage and two from another and 1 more from the current union, because THAT isn't exactly traditional, either. And really, while you're at it, let's make divorce illegal when there are kids involved, because having divorced parents that remarry and all that jazz isn't traditional or natural either.
And again comes the stereotype that raising children through adoption or surrogacy isn't natural--gee, thanks for telling me that adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent. I'll be sure to tell that to my daughter's adoptive parents, and make sure to tell my husband that since we're infertile together that we will NEVER have the same natural, traditional family that others have---I mean, it's just not NATURAL or TRADITIONAL to use infertility treatments, or adoption, or surrogacy to have a child. We should just give that dream up, never be parents, and take up mountain climbing because it's just not the same thing as being REAL, traditional, natural parents.
Gay "marriage". Newspeak.
I'm all for the traditional "gay" [ "happy", before the homosexuals co-opted the word ] marriage, and I am against sad marriage ;)
Best way to have a child without getting the opposite sex involved? Adopt!
Second best way to have a child without having intercourse with the opposite sex? IVF or surrogacy.
HETEROSEXUAL couples use this as a valid way to become REAL parents all the time. If it's valid for heterosexuals to become a family by use of these infertility options, then it is valid for homosexuals to become a family the same way.
And considering that in the Mormom religion, in the United States, polygamy was allowed until 1878 when the Supreme Court ruled that law cannot interfere with beliefs, but it can interfere with practices.
And frankly, I've been thinking about that quote from Genesis, Genesis 2:24 Therfore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.
That's in Genesis, right? That's the definition that everyone is basing the "one man, one woman" thing off, right?
Well, why then did men in the Bible have MORE than one wife AFTER this definition of marriage?
If that definition is the basis of the "one male, one female" argument, the Bible itself contradicts this not long afterward, with the stories of Biblical men and their multiple wives.
Look, I really am trying to see where you're coming from. Honestly---I'm reading your side, and trying to relate. But what it seems to come down to, to me, in every post, is that those who are against gay marriage base that on their RELIGIOUS feelings, and I don't feel like their religion should dictate the LAW.
I guess my question comes down to this: If we were to compromise, and EVERYONE had to get civil unionized before they could get married, and EVERY church had the right to decide who they would marry--would you still have a problem with Steve saying he's married to Gary, even if they didn't get married in your church? Would you be okay with your daughter ONLY being able to say she's civil unionized if she never got "married" in a church but only had the courthouse ceremony?
To me, this is equal, and gives people their religious rights AND their civil rights. Sure, it creates an extra step for the people who used to just be able to get a marriage license and have a pastor marry them, but so what? It would be EQUAL for everyone.
Synnen, I said there were alternative ways to have a child... but it still requires both sexes (that is until we start cloning people like sheep). As for the bible and multiple wives, there are certainly conflicts with God's ideal and what man has actually done, otherwise we might still be living in a perfect world... but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.
Yeah, but it was entrapment. Like locking a four year old in his room with a full cookie jar and then punishing him for the rest of his life for taking a cookie. You'd think God would give it a rest with the eternal punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I haven't read all the other posts, too many, not enough time. So I'll just pipe in. ;)
Why is Gay marriage such a big deal? No one is saying you have to be in a gay marriage, no one is saying that you have to accept gays.
Yes, to some people marriage is a holy union between man and women, but really people, it's just a contract, a legal document.
You can get married in the biggest, fanciest church, have the pope himself officiate, it's still just a legal document.
So, why can't gays legally marry? They aren't going to muddy up anyone's churches, they aren't going to come to Sunday mass and expect you to let them join. You still have the right to turn them away just like you do so many other people whose lifestyles you don't agree with.
What's the big deal?
Maybe we should do away with marriage altogether, because I really thought that you married someone because you loved them, not because of their sex!
Sorry, a bit disturbed, a little mad, I'll go now. :(
Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo," vandalize your church, publish blacklists, bully you, and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
I don't know any gay couples that goes around starting trouble in churches.
It's funny because I know a couple that is in a same sex marriage that lives in NC and they both are Christians. One of them is a pastor of a church and she is very good. Meanwhile I have another friend that lives here in NY and he is an Christian too but when they met at a party he became livid because not only was he mad because she was a Christian but he was mad that she was a lebian. Once he found out she was a pastor forgot about it. I come to realize that even though they are both Christian he is always mad about things then she is. Sometimes I don't even bother talking to him because his mouth is so foul and I have idea where he gets his twisted views.
Everyone should be free to marry who they want. What happens if your child told you they were gay, would your view change, would you accept that your child was gay, or disown them? My mother didn't approve of a person being gay until my sister advised everyone she was a lebian and my mother view completely change and she has no problem with it now.
If you already love someone, it's hard to stop loving them just because you found out something that was always true, especially if they have harmed no one. I'm so glad your mother accepted your sister. I'm always amazed by parents who reject their own children because they are gay. I can't imagine doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by liz28
Belief in god doesn't seem to keep people from being filled with fear and loathing. I really don't think that homophobia is based in religion. I think the Bible is just used as an excuse to condemn something that is scary to some people. You can be homophobic and either religious or not religious. You can be accepting of homosexuals and be either religious or not. There's no particular connection between belief and acceptance of gays as far as I can see. Just my two cents.
Geez, give them the piece of paper, and a tax deduction, and lets move on!
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Really, wow, I must have gone to church with a lot of homosexuals then. The Christians blacklisted me, they acted like a$$es when I didn't bow to their demands. So, if you think the gays will do all that you claim, seems like they'd fit right in.
Really, what are worried about? Do you think you'll turn gay just being around them? I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not a disease, it just is.
Think about it, with all the gay bashing, gay hate crimes, people (like you) who don't accept gays, why would anyone choose to be gay? I'll tell you why, it's not a choice, you either are, or you aren't, just like you're either short or you're tall. It's been proven.
So what do you hope to gain from stopping gay marriages? How would allowing gay marriages disrupt your perfect little life?
Dang, I'm mad!
I am Roman Catholic... which we do not accept or condone gay marriages at all in our belief system. BUT if a man/woman was gay and came into the Church to pray... does the priest honestly have a right to say your not a man/woman of spirituality and because you are sleeping with another man/woman you must leave? I don't think anyone has the ability to interfere with ones faith or relationship with their God. What rights does a priest have as they are also sinners born into this world?. who is he I should have to confess to, just because the Church says he is a man of God? That's BS, everyone has a right to believe and attend services, everyone has a right to the holy eucerust... even a murderer can repent and be forgiven... so why not a gay/lesbian? Why can they not be accepted? I don't think we would be better then the people who nailed Jesus to the cross whatever happened to not judging. Its not like their getting married in Church before the eyes of God and there is no way in hell that would ever happen - nor is that what gays want. But if it's a legal piece of paper allowing them to reap the same benefits as every other married couple and say I love you and I want to spend the rest of my life with you... then to hell with it who cares? I know the Church came out and say that the protesters are vandalizing the Church and that is not acceptable but then why is the Church participating in this movement... it is only coming to the Church's stairs because the Church is getting involved. Which, might I add is inappropriate as well - they should never be involved in Government decisions... this isn't politics and religion? Is it? I take my ten commandments seriously and I do follow my faith but I don't believe everything the community/society/church tells me... I am an independent individual and have a right not to agree with everything I am told and I am sorry if I offended anyone.
I can tell you that I have nothing against gays and nothing against lesbians so long as they respect my wishes... and they always do. They are people just like us (straight) no different... I love my husband and he loves me... if he was a woman (I would be a lesbian :)) You don't choose who you are in love with and if you are in love with someone, you and your partner have every right to be together just as anyone else.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:30 AM. |