Gay Marriage page 93

3390 posts

Flag Post

He seems to say there shouldn’t be anything political about religion, so my conclusion would be that at the same time religion shouldn’t be forced into politics.

 
Flag Post

me and my friends all have sexual preferences because we fall in love with the gender its love and aren’t you supposed to marry someone who you love and just think about all those people who want to show their love to their family in a way that will bond them for who knows how long im Bisexual and proud of it and all my friends are happy for gay marriage in NZ because we don’t care as long as it isn’t mandatory so GRRRRRRR…. ROOOOAAARRRRR… The cat is unpleased with this atitude towards loving genders.RRRROOOOAAAARRRR

 
Flag Post

Azolf,

There’s a lot hatred and blame on both sides of this discussion. I personally don’t feel that lifestyles and worldviews are the issue here. The government is all too happy to prey on our fears and sympathies to divide an manipulate us. “Gay marriage” is only a big deal because people are making it into a big deal. Dueling political parties are all too happy to force feed the controversy. I think we’ve all been duped

You understand that as the entitled party in a power differential, it’s easy for you to trivialize the other parties loss of liberty? I’d have a hard time telling two consenting adults that the state cannot sanction their choice as they do with others, on account of their gender. That is state sanctioned direct discrimination. I can see for how some people being directly trodden upon legally as a unempowered entity pretty enraging.

Sapphira,

Not trying to impose on anyone, but I’m genuinely curious as to opinions on the matter. Again, forgive me if I seem a bit.. dull. Was just a thought.

No not at all. You seemed quite humble, sincere and articulate – always a pleasure. Your arguments, though I find them valid, may find little ground nevertheless. In many ways the lines are drawn, many of us have had this argument a few times with a rotating case of characters. But it serves to test and challenge principles, drag up information, views and topics and keep everyone sharp on their stance. Good to see some new blood, hope you stick about.

Flabby,

And it’s a natural choice that harms nobody.

A while back in the Subjective topic we talking about valuations. I think many secular groups place Harm, and avoiding it, pretty high on the list. I am not so sure that it does no harm is as convincing of a defense to a great many theists. Harm is, often, a lesser virtue to obedience, harm is construed as the outcome and secondary justification to disobedience a priori.

The government should stay out of all marriages altogether. The the individual churches and communities decide what is right for them, and let the government choose a term other than marriage to identify all united couples.

Again, I generally agree with you in this regard. Hell, to see things resolved I personally would be fine with what you presented. But, nevertheless, I feel it is the Religious groups that should back down from the word ‘marriage’ not the government, by all rights. Your religion does not have a monopoly on marriage as an act, ritual, or word. That is purposeful, self congratulatory, self exultant, brain wash nonsense. Do you seriously think no one was getting married before the AD Calender? That is thousands, thousands, of years of history. Do you think the Christian marriage ceremony didn’t inherit massive amounts of cultural bleed from it’s jewish roots, roman cohabitation, pagan inviting, history? Christianity is the new guy to the marriage game.

 
Flag Post

oh and also.

 
Flag Post

Actually, it looks like the same people are standing at both rallies.

 
Flag Post

I am going to say what I actually think about homosexuals…

I believe that homosexuals have no choice in the matter of thier sexuality. It is something that they are born with. I believe that it is a sort of genetic abnormality. I feel that in the future, when we have advanced in the field of genetic engineering, we will be able to tell, before a person is born, what thier sexuality would be. It may even be possible to alter the genes.

One day, a doctor will stand in front of a couple and say, “You child will be a homosexual. If you want, we can change that.”


Having said that, I would like to point out that I fully support gay rights.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fma1:

Personally, I think it’s a mixture of nature and nurture, with varrying degrees on their influence to the individual.

 
Flag Post

A mix of genetics and hormones seems more likely. After all, with genetics alone, you as a kid had no interest in sex, nor found anyone ‘attractive’, did you? When the sexual hormones turned on, your attraction hardwiring ‘woke up’.

 
Flag Post

A while back in the Subjective topic we talking about valuations. I think many secular groups place Harm, and avoiding it, pretty high on the list. I am not so sure that it does no harm is as convincing of a defense to a great many theists. Harm is, often, a lesser virtue to obedience, harm is construed as the outcome and secondary justification to disobedience a priori.

Even if we went semantics and defined “personally feeling offended” as harm, there is no justification for restricting arbitrary stuff within that subgroup (remember that it is homosexuality they are mentally offended by, not marriage of them).

 
Flag Post

I still haven’t heard the argument from social conservatives concerning the theological and political difference between not allowing same-sex marriage and not allowing miscegenation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I still haven’t heard the argument from social conservatives concerning the theological and political difference between not allowing same-sex marriage and not allowing miscegenation.

As far as I know, the Bible says little on either specifically on homosexual marriages or interracial marriages. Homosexuality however is mentioned in passages such as 1st Corinthians 6: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 
Flag Post

Dark,

Even if we went semantics and defined “personally feeling offended” as harm, there is no justification for restricting arbitrary stuff within that subgroup (remember that it is homosexuality they are mentally offended by, not marriage of them).

I am not suggesting that it justifies anything. Or broadening Harm into Offended. Merely that cries of “it does no harm” may really be of little consideration to the other party. This goes back into the dangers of orthodoxy. It is bad because it is bad, because God said so. It is justification unto itself, it requires no other values or input. One can not dissuade such a view without the intervention of God, or something considered God. It is not a social dialogue weighing the consequences of a choice to many, it is rather the simple obedience to God. Of what matter then is harm?

Bob,

Well homosexual marriages are a little beyond the time, but homosexuality as an act is condemned with the death penalty within the OT, Leviticus specifically. As for Interracial marriage is was more, cultural, perhaps, geography demanded similar groups would neighbor each other. The OT also continually denounces marriages outside of the tribe of Israel, threats of general smiting and smoting. I can dig up some passages in either regard, but the latter is so prevalent it hardly bears it.

 
Flag Post

I am not suggesting that it justifies anything. Or broadening Harm into Offended. Merely that cries of “it does no harm” may really be of little consideration to the other party. This goes back into the dangers of orthodoxy. It is bad because it is bad, because God said so. It is justification unto itself, it requires no other values or input. One can not dissuade such a view without the intervention of God, or something considered God. It is not a social dialogue weighing the consequences of a choice to many, it is rather the simple obedience to God. Of what matter then is harm?

Well, obviously, if you argue with the ignorant, you have little hope of using logic being appreciated. I’m not necessarily trying to convince such people, but the actually intelligent ones that reject homosexuality. “Harm” should be a global concept any way. What issue in our current society can you name that is both wrong and not harmful? I would suggest none, since it not being harmful makes you unable to claim it’s wrong in the first place. “But God says it is wrong” —> We’ve gone back to the ignorant, those who believe they aren’t being deceived by those who really wrote the Bible. So, while I agree I won’t convince those that have such silly viewpoints, I at least hope to inform those who think it is wrong but don’t necessarily use circular reasoning.

 
Flag Post

Yes, the homosexual plight is just like the plight of blacks decades ago. When will homosexuals finally get the right to vote? When will they finally get the right to ride the same bus? When will they be able to use the same bathrooms? When will they be treated like people, instead of slaves? When will homosexuals finally get to use the same laundromats, grocery stores, and barber shops?

Wait a second. The two plights aren’t anything like each other. In fact, it’s pretty disrespectful to the civil rights movement against racism to make these comparisons.

It’s ridiculous. It sounds like this: The government wants to charge me sales tax? This is just like the time the Nazis murdered all the Jews.

Be honest, not shock.

 
Flag Post

Bob,

Well homosexual marriages are a little beyond the time, but homosexuality as an act is condemned with the death penalty within the OT, Leviticus specifically. As for Interracial marriage is was more, cultural, perhaps, geography demanded similar groups would neighbor each other. The OT also continually denounces marriages outside of the tribe of Israel, threats of general smiting and smoting. I can dig up some passages in either regard, but the latter is so prevalent it hardly bears it.

I agree with you there, but I think the passages are largely irrelevant to interracial marriage in a modern context. The Bible does say that a Christian should marry a Christian, and I think we all can see why this makes sense in a modern context. The verses in the OT pertaining to cross-cultural marriage are analogous to what I mentioned previously, a restriction that you only marry people with the same beliefs essentially.

 
Flag Post

MyTie…who here has equated the Civil rights movement to the rights of Homosexuals to marry?

Commentors here are only drawing a comparison between the type of people that were against ‘mixed marriages’ and ‘gay marriages’.

You should be honest, not shock.

 
Flag Post

The two plights aren’t anything like each other.

That’s great! We have finally agreed on something! I don’t have a clue why you posted this, though, because nobody is suggesting anything like that. Here we go again with the strawmen.

Like Flabby said, people were heavily against interracial marriages, but in many countries that’s a normal case now. So, what’s suddenly the deal with homosexual marriages?

 
Flag Post

Dark,

Quite right. I’d quote but it would just be a big block of text I am nodding along to. My major point in any regard is that, if harm is secondary to obedience, then there is no hope of a dialogue. In such regards, what are we to do? There is no easy answer, it is something I’ve been considering lately.

MyTie

Be honest, not shock.

Wasn’t that really the tail end of your appeal though? Making comparative analogies to previous problems is, generally, a desperate gambit by either party. Would I say it is as bad as the US racism against their black population, namely historically? Well no. Does that matter? No. It remains a serious problem unto itself without relying on any hyperbole. I can care less how it compares to other mistakes of the past. We have sets of the population specifically not extended the basic legal mores as another, for no discernible purpose beyond perpetuating socio-theo traditions. It is direct discrimination by the state hiding behind the skirt of ever fleeting populist appeal and previous authority.

I agree with you there, but I think the passages are largely irrelevant to interracial marriage in a modern context. The Bible does say that a Christian should marry a Christian, and I think we all can see why this makes sense in a modern context. The verses in the OT pertaining to cross-cultural marriage are analogous to what I mentioned previously, a restriction that you only marry people with the same beliefs essentially.

Really I have to agree with you. Without apologizing for the violent xenophobia of the OT, it does not seem racist. Although it is at a time when divisions of race and culture were, largely, redundant. I misremembered a story and found an interesting ancedote. Moses, marries an Ethiopian woman. His brother and sister are upset about this, and complain. God hears them, tells them Moses is special and they shouldn’t question him, and gives Miriam -the sister, leprosy. So… doesn’t seem racist at least.

 
Flag Post

My major point in any regard is that, if harm is secondary to obedience, then there is no hope of a dialogue. In such regards, what are we to do?

Make sure they’re incapable of influencing the law. Discrimination is a very serious issue, and letting some religious beliefs spill through only makes it worse. But, no, there’s probably no way we can convince such people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

I agree with you there, but I think the passages are largely irrelevant to interracial marriage in a modern context. The Bible does say that a Christian should marry a Christian, and I think we all can see why this makes sense in a modern context. The verses in the OT pertaining to cross-cultural marriage are analogous to what I mentioned previously, a restriction that you only marry people with the same beliefs essentially.

I could be wrong but I thought the Bible said that if you marry someone not of your faith, to stay with them and work on it (paraphrasing).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

MyTie…who here has equated the Civil rights movement to the rights of Homosexuals to marry?

Commentors here are only drawing a comparison between the type of people that were against ‘mixed marriages’ and ‘gay marriages’.

You should be honest, not shock.

Flabby…why do we cast pearls of wisdom before such pigs? LOL
I’m gonna post some links that “prove” our point about how ppl are focusing on the tail-wagging-the-dog rather than the other way around. IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED. Not on the analogies being exactly the same. After all, if they were the same…it wouldn’t be an analogy….duh.
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE Ann Coulter pretty much epitomizes the ideology of the “rabid right” conservatives.

Read the link, if ya can’t see “it”…..ya probably are one, too….lol

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

%70 of Christians are false Christians. The true Christians are ones that don’t try to control the marriage system and don’t discriminate people for pathetic reasons.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

%70 of Christians are false Christians. The true Christians are ones that don’t try to control the marriage system and don’t discriminate people for pathetic reasons.

Did you know 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

In other words, elaborate on the ‘’false Christians’’ thing?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:
Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

%70 of Christians are false Christians. The true Christians are ones that don’t try to control the marriage system and don’t discriminate people for pathetic reasons.

Did you know 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

In other words, elaborate on the ‘’false Christians’’ thing?

Is this going to be a percentage of a percentage thing? :-D

Like, if 70% is x and 87% is y, what is y of x…..