I agree totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by NowWhat
|
I agree totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by NowWhat
Yes. I agree
So you're saying you are for gays or you're against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NowWhat
Half-interest in the house is an asset that is part of the dead person's estate. So in settling his estate, the executor must dispose of that asset as called for in the will, if there is one, or in accordance with state laws that govern inheritance. If the will specifies that the other joint owner is to receive his (the decedent's) interest in the house, the decedent's family or other heirs wouldn't be able to do anything about it, except maybe challenge the will.Quote:
Originally Posted by kraz
If there is no will, and the partner wants to and is financially able to purchase the decedent's interest from the estate, they could do that. If the partner was unable to purchase the decedent's interest, the estate could force a sale of the property, and half the proceeds would go to each owner. In this particular situation, being legally married would only change the outcome if there were no will, in which case, the decedent's interest would automatically go to the spouse.
I am for it. Why not, they are not hurting anyone. Why should people judge of who and what they are. If it came to your offspring or even a family member would you treat them different? Look I am not here to argue. I just think that what ever people won't to do it's totally up to them. If people worried about other things like global worming rather then what or who a person loves we would have nothing to worry about. I hope people would be less racial about this topic.
Well, I have said this earlier on in the thread, I am against gay marriage. In my opinion, marriage is one man and one woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by alyssarox32
If they want a civil union or whatever, fine. It's really symantics to me.
Do gay people bother me? No. There are people in my life that are gay and I love them dearly. But, again, marriage is a man and a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love-Life
Using religion for being rude and ignorant? Most of the worlds population is governed by some form of religious belief, if scripture was removed what would you base right and wrong on? Being gay is a sin in ALL religions (well the main ones to my knowledge) and that is the obstacle facing gay people, if you remove religion from the argument than what stands in the way of any issue, any sin for that matter? I could tell you that selling drugs to kids is right and necessary for me to do, without scripture to guide our laws and ourselves what argument would you base it being wrong against?
Allow religious beleifs to control your morals? Yes, this is the basis for all religion is it not, hence the argument at hand. Curiously, what exactly do you base your moral beleifs on?
Finally, your comments about God loving his children and making it so that it would never happen is a nonsensical argument. God loves all his children indeed, however, man has free will choose his path or create one's own. God loves drug addicts, serial killers, and all who sin. However, if God removed all temptation from the world than we would all be perfect no? We choose what we do and accept the consequences of doing the wrong thing. This applies to God letting it happen, it was not his idea for it TO happen I would think, but nor was war, famine, and murder, it was man who caused all of this. So saying that if a man loves a man it is o.k because God loves you is a very simplistic answer. I believe he still does no matter what, but in judgement you must atone for your sins.
I was only responding to your previous post, my intention is not to turn this into our own personal belief argument nor detract from the original posters question.
MY religion (Wicca) believes that love is love, regardless who it's between.
No, it's not exactly a mainstream religion--but it IS older than Christianity.
Yes--remove scripture! Scripture was written by men, right? Therefore, it's flawed!
Morals are morals regardless. The big rules for every religion are pretty much the same--Love your god, honor your parents, don't kill or hurt anyone else. How hard is it for people to just use common sense for morals? Hurting someone else is bad, because you don't want someone else to hurt you!
If we went back to the Bible for EVERYTHING (or any of the other Judeo-Christian texts) we'd still be stoning people for adultery. In America, that means we'd be stoning people (to death, mind you) about every 5 minutes. Give me a break!
What I hate is the hypocrisy of accepting SOME rules of the Bible and not others. If you're going to do it, go all the way. Women should cover their hair, men should have multiple wives, you should be able to sell your brother into slavery because he has a better coat than you.
Jeesh.
I always found this argument humorous. I don't read 'scripture' yet I seem to know what is right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
You mean to tell me that without a book you wouldn't know that drugs are bad? Or that murder is bad? Or that sleeping with your neighbour's wife is bad? Then by all means tie that book to hip and keep it handy. Many of us know these things without the need for a book to tell us.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
Wow this topic is going in so many directions. What will come next? Hmmmmm
I'm really shocked at the responses when one mentions th Bible and Scripture in arguments. Seems like a lot of religious bashing going on, especially towards the Christian religion. Coming from an atheist and a Wiccan I'n not too sure you have any substantial teaching on the Bible to be using examples from it to prove your points. Just seems like ignorance to me.
The Bible was written by man inspired by God, not by man alone. You also take a very literal approach to what is being said in the pages you may or may not have read, and once again it is a simplistic look at religion and sin as a whole. The purpose of this thread is not to express you limited views of religion (at least Christianity) and make arguments based on misrepresenting what the Bible is actually teaching.
Remove scripture? I doubt you thought that through and through, seeing as how the ramifications of such a suggestion would be far more widespread than you may think, almost all of society and societies past are based on it (eg.laws).
Being gay is a sin in religious books, therefore, someone with a strong faith may be inclined to look upon the act as a sin because it is against what their religion teaches them. IF you choose to disregard what the scripture says than fine, I did not say you were any less of a person than I. It is un-natural, I doubt you can argue that really.
People that believe in scripture and God believe it is a sin, well some. So sitting here saying things about stoning people and removing scripture is very insulting, especially when words like sheesh are used. Like you find it to be such a silly thing, y'know Christianity. I don't know anything about the Wiccan religion and soi do not make comments about it, perhaps you should dothe same in matters you know little about.
It's not bashing. You can't comprehend how anyone could live their lives without scripture and we are telling that we do it just fine. Take it as you wish.
By the way this question is posted in the Marriage forum, not the Christianity forum.
Sorry, I just read NeedKarma response.
You don't need a book to tell you that this is wrong or not right? In many belief God instilled upon birth what is right and wrong into every being, so by that belief you would not need a book to tell you but rather guide you on how to live a good life. One does not simply read scripture once andthats it, it is carried around for a lifetime.
NeedKarma,from a Spiritual perspective you must take a lot of credit for what "you" have done to negotiate your way through life, perhaps your just more enlightened than the rest of us common folk who must attach books to our hips in order to gain direction in life.
I have a question for those against gay marriage because it is a sin. I'm being honest, I'd really like honest responses, I really am confused about this.
You (the collective you) say gays should not be allowed to marry because being gay is a sin. What does that sin have to do with marriage? There are a lot of sins - and no one else is forbidden to marry because of their sin. Murderers, adulterers, liars; they all still have the right to marry. Is the "gay sin" worse than those other sins, and that's why they aren't allowed to marry?
I just really don't understand the logic. I thought you were supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner; and if that's so, why are gays given unequal treatment in this regard? To me (and maybe I'm missing something) if one's only reason for disapproving of gay marriage is that it is a "sin" that person should also be against liars, adulterers, murderers, etc getting married because those are also "sins". If one is NOT against those others getting married, then it indicates to me there is prejudice against gays, and the objection is to gays, not to sinners. And then we get into ugly words like racism and judging...
I'm willing to admit I might be missing something; maybe no one has explained their argument fully enough for me to "get it". But this is how I see the logic - and it just doesn't work. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Ya why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Hello jillian:
I don't have the answer - only a follow up question.
I suspect that the answer, however, to your question might be that the "institution" of marriage will be ruined or destroyed if gays were allowed to marry.
If that is indeed the answer, I'm really interested in how that would occur. Oh, I understand you don't want the "institution" tampered with, but how, on a one to one level, does it ruin marriage?
I truly don't see how it could affect YOUR heterosexual marriage - nor your children's marriage or anybody else's heterosexual marriage.. I too, may be missing something.
Are your children NOT going to marry because gays can? Will it disgust them to marry if gays can too? Will the church look askance at your children's marriage because gays can marry? Will you lose government benefits?
I truly don't know. Thanks for letting me but in, jillian.
excon
I agree, excon. I think it has more to do with the word "marriage" than the act, but again, I might be wrong. Not everyone here has said they are a-ok with civil unions for gays, but opposed to marriage for gays. In my mind, if you are opposed to both, you have a prejudice, but still, perhaps we're missing something. :)
I still like my original idea - "marriage" is a church thing, "civil unions" are a state/federal thing. Blah blah blah, semantics, blah blah blah.
LOL!
NeedKarma- Thanks for pointing out this is in the marriage category, I was confused myself with your posts about how amusing scripture is to you.
As for me not being able to comprehend you not reading scripture, really I couldn't care less if you do or don't. Most people against gay marriage are angainst it because oftheir religious beleifs, how can you speak of a topic like this without SOME biblical reference, after all it is about sin. What's even more plexing is talking about sin without any understanding of it.
Hello BMI:
If it were JUST about sin, then I wouldn't be making an issue of it. I couldn't care less about sin.
But, the government bestows certain legal benefits upon those who are married. So, I'm talking about RIGHTS - not sin.
excon
I was raised catholic, went to catholic schools, even to a Jesuit private school. I know about all it; I know you wish I was ignorant but I'm not. I just decided that being religious did not make you a better person.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
No, no, NeedKarma I do not wish you were ignorant. WE just do not agree with spiritual issues as this is not the first time we have argued over the subject.
As for the issue of sin, well a great deal of the argument against gay unions comes from the fact of whether the action is considered a sin or not. IF considered a sin than churches cannot go along with marriages and so the state makes civil unions to compensate. The state does not express for or against gays in many ways as to not infringe on one's religious beleifs. Really, I don't think that state and religion are separate and apart and the whole civil union idea was derived out of this same argument I'd wager. Whether it is sin or not.
I'm sorry I wasn't making this the point from the beginning... I, nor any true follower of the Bible and Christ, will ever tell a homosexual that they are any less of a person for being gay. In reality, that's the common misconception about sin altogether, is that with or without certain ones you are a better or worse person because of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
All have sinned, every one and for us to think that abstaining from 'the majority' of sin makes us any better, makes us actually worse, and right in with the brood of vipers that Jesus himself condemned.
The reason that any true Christian would not approve of gay marriage, is because its putting the sinner, (just like any person) into a situation that they are bound to. Its making it even more difficult to turn from your sins of the past and follow God (repentance) because you are not only emotionally bound, which God can break in a moment, its called deliverance, but legally.
Im not going to use the "oh Ive got friends that are gay so I MUST not have a problem with it" thing. Psh.
I sin, we all sin, and we all need God, I just wouldn't want someone who God LOVES and created to commune with Him to have any more of a difficult time to come to Him by legality.
Well, that certainly isn't the response I was expecting - You oppose gay marriage because it makes it harder for the gays to form a relationship with god. So you're against it, for their ultimate "best interest".Quote:
Originally Posted by Leidenschaftlich für Wahr
No, I certainly didn't expect that.
I, too, was raised in a Christian family. My mom Catholic, and my dad Lutheran.
I went to Sunday school, Bible camp, Confirmation Camp, all that rigamarole.
I CHOSE my religion as an adult.
I "understand" the Christian perspective--I just find it hypocritical.
Jillian raises the best point, though--and it's really what I was trying to say. Why can OTHER sins be ignored for the sake of marriage, but not homosexuality? Why shouldn't someone who was once an adulterer, who was divorced for it, not be denied the sanctity of marriage a second time, then?
I just don't understand why giving someone a way to publicly express love AND that gives them legal rights at the same time is so bad.
A person who committed adultery can be forgiven, they can turn from their sin, just like a gay person, they can turn from their sin and get married to someone of the other sex.
That is the real difference, being sorry for their sin, and asking forgiveness for their sin.
nothing had to understand about the Christian idea of sin, it is not a double standard, it is a fact that the homosexual community does not want to admit it is a sin at all.
Hello again:
I'm still blown away that Leiden would deny gays the right to marry because he's looking out for 'em.
I live in sin daily. Don't you want to look out for me too? What rights should you take away from me that would make be a better person?
excon
Do you advocate that adulterers and fornicators should be denied equal protection under civil and criminal law until they "turn from their [sic] sin"? Why should one class of sexual sinners (homosexuals) be denied legal rights and protections that other classes of sinners (adulterers, fornicators) are afforded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
You think it's a sin? Fine, don't marry them in your church. But don't try to deny basic secular legal protections to people just because your church defines them as sinners. Civil and criminal law deals in guilt and punishment, not sin. In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of sodomy laws a year or two ago. I suppose it's a moot point now, but I always wondered if lesbians could commit the crime of sodomy. You used to be in law enforcement, do you know?
It's not natural, it's not normal and it is a further deviation from the traditional family…I say no to same sex marriage.
Although I understand your point of the fact that... true repentance is turning from your sin, and it can't be true turning if you know that you'll do it again, I have to disagree with you about the adultery thing. This could definitely begin a whole other spill, but the Bible says that if a person is married and then decides to divorce, thus sins and is causing the other to sin, except on the grounds of unfaithfulness...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I appreciate your point though
~Ash
So is living together, a deviation of traditional marriage, as far as normal, that's what gay people, do so its normal among homosexuals, and I doubt saying that its unnatural will find agreement in the gay community. I think its up to the church, not the law, whether they will marry a gay couple, and as everyone knows the institution of marriage is only working half the time, and falling steadily. I think they should have to go through a divorce, just like us married people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
AWW MAN based on the above link over 1500 species of animals are going to hell :( They have been known to have sexual relationships...
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them."
I'd understand homosexuality being a choice if it was just humans, but sorry animals don't choose if they are gay... Try to explain that...
SIDENOTE: And instead of some quote from the bible that has nothing to do with animals or homosexuality, actually find a quote that has to do it with, anyone can twist words.
Of course there is no real protectoin under the law for homosexual marriage, this is a desire that the constitution be rewritten to say it, but it does not.
But they have all the same rights, if they wish to find someone of the other sex and marry they have all the same and EQUAL rights to everyone else.
And yes, animal sexual desires, so you are saying that homoseuxals are down to merely animal sexual desires?? I would give them more credit as to making a choice in their actoins.
In the end, it is really not a natural sexual act, as mentioned eariler, but of course those that are homosexual will not admit that ither, any more than admit it is a sin.
But God will forgive you when you are really to repent, he loves everyone, no matter what their place in life. But of course bible quotes mean little to those that don't want to accept his word anyway.
Your correct, that's for christians to worry about and as a non christian and with all due respect the bible is a book, written by man for man, as are all the "bibles" and cannot replace a personal relationship between God and the individual. As to the question, Is homosexuality natural, of course it is, and will always be. It may not be popular, and history tells us it isn't, but among those who are homosexual, its as natural as man and women, and there are many examples in nature, to back up that claim. Even further there are some animals that actually change their sex to compensate, for the lack of a gender, so they can procreate.Quote:
But of course bible quotes mean little to those that don't want to accept his word anyway.
Well humans are animals just more educated, I'm simply saying its not just not a human choice just like retardation, cancer, and such. Now like above someone will say I'm sayinng being gay is like being retarted. Its not, and I'm bi so I would be insulting myself if I said otherwise. Im saying its like your eye color and height, you can't change it.
And therefore gay marriage should be accepted. We let crimminals get married and killers and yet 2 guys just seem wrong, not a person who kills people.
Those animals go to animal hell then... Least that's what the bible says in a sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Um, Sgt, that's how some interpret those verses. Others interpret them differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE
Its not natural, I have truly been biting my tongue here. I have posted my stance earlier. I feel this thread has gone all over the place and is never ending. This thread was about gay marriage and nothing else.
Joe
If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?
Had to spread it but I wanted to give a balancer. This is a totally inaccurate statement.Quote:
KalFour disagrees: Firstly, animals having occasional homosexual tendencies aregues that it IS natural. And secondly, the new testament states that you can be forgiven if you love Jesus, you don't have to repent for every detail of your life.
I have to admit this is a good point.Quote:
I think they should have to go through a divorce, just like us married people.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM. |