  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Most Commented
Recent comments
- You read the literature?
9 hours 11 min ago - Thanks, people. Arguments
18 hours 15 min ago - You forgot to post the
1 day 11 hours ago - I am not convinced. As long
1 day 16 hours ago - Very funny!!!It's definitely
1 day 22 hours ago - Good stuff.
After all, if
2 days 1 hour ago - perfect
2 days 2 hours ago - Global warming? Or the guys
2 days 3 hours ago - a prehistoric parable.....
2 days 5 hours ago - That about sums it up.
2 days 7 hours ago
News
- Biden Warns Iraq Leaders of Return to Ethnic Fights
- Top Reformers Admitted Plot, Iran Declares
- Palin Resigning Governor’s Job; Future Unclear
- Fans Rally, and Officials Brace to Honor Jackson
- Russia Opens Route for U.S. to Fly Arms to Afghanistan
- Back to Business: For Banks, Wads of Cash and Loads of Trouble
- ‘Family Friendly’ White House Is Less So for Aides
- College Stars Sue Over Likenesses in Video Games
- ArtsBeat: Tickets Available by Lottery for Jackson Memorial
- Renewed Roddick Savors Return to Top
RSS
Do Something!
Comments
It's kind of silly when
It's kind of silly when people bring god and religion into the debate about gay marriage. Since the debate is about the state recognizing the marriage as valid, the church plays no role other than a legally irrelevant lacy white ceremony. The part that is important to the state is the paperwork -- they don't care how much your wedding cost. Because of this nifty bit of the first amendment, the establishment clause, they can't require that you have any sort of religious ceremony at all, so for the purposes of the debate, marriage is a completely secular, legal union. It's not infringing on the rights of the church, because the state allowing gay marriage doesn't force the church to recognize, endorse, or perform homosexual marriages. They can stay as bigoted and medieval (or not) as they want. It would change nothing for the church, because you can be damn sure that any law that tries to force the church to do anything will be fought up to the supreme court. The only real reason this concerns the church at all is their moral code. There is no relevant argument connecting law, gay marriage, and religion, unless you're some sort of social sadist and just like seeing people get up in arms and at each-others throats.
> It's not infringing on the
> It's not infringing on the rights of the church, because the state allowing gay marriage doesn't force the church to recognize, endorse, or perform homosexual marriages.
It certainly does in Canada and the UK, and possibly in other countries (although I haven't looked at them closely).
In Canada, a church that refuses to wed a homosexual couple can (and will) be charged with 'discrimination' in the human rights kangaroo courts. The church can then be sued, gagged, fined, or even shut down.
Not one of my country's finer points.
Let us take a step back from
Let us take a step back from this argument, people and look at the country as a whole for a moment, shall we?
While it is true that the majority of the population is Christian, it is also true that there are many people living within this country that are not Christian and do not use the bible as their source of "moral fiber," they may even (gasp) be Atheists.
These people do not deserve to be subjugated under the Christian majority, regardless of what your particular holy book says, EVERYONE is entitled to marry the love of his or her life, regardless of gender.
This issue demonstrates the need for a separation of church and state.
I am officially forming a
I am officially forming a religion called NIFTY-ISM. In this religion instead of "marriage" there is "Mariage" exactly the same benefits except that gay people can take part too. Nifty-Ism says that you must believe or not believe in whatever you did before so that when people convert they wont have to change any beliefs of theirs except regarding mariage. Hmmmm... looks like that solves that problem.
AND it's unconstitutional for the government to say that this religion doesn't exist or isn't valid.
so all you homophobes that used religion as a weapon in this argument can just sit and watch. :D
ta ta
-someone who cares
Wake up dummies. There is no
Wake up dummies.
There is no such thing as gay people.
Dont mix behaviour (non human) with what we are in our trues selfes.
To men can't for sure get married, it's ridiculous.
And which all grown up people also know, they can't have sex. Sex is when yin and ynag meets, the two "poles", yin and yang. That is with the life, brings it further. The opposite is destruction, evil and death - has nothing to do with love, sex, and human nature.
It's a crazy world. People has really being dumbed down.
One thing positive that I
One thing positive that I can say is that you are not a right-wing religious fanatic. However, by your spelling and sentence structure, it appears tome that you are 12 years younger than the 18 year old requirement to be able to legally sign onto this web site. Keep going to school, kid! Someday, you may be able to say, "I are educaytud"!
His comment was stupid, but
His comment was stupid, but it always amuses me how people who pride themselves on tolerance immediately assume that anyone under the age of 18 is an idiot, to the point where they use youth as an insult against anyone they disagree with (and they don't even see any of the irony in it!). Prejudice is prejudice, and racism, homophobia, and ageism are all part of the same disease.
let me guess, you think its
let me guess, you think its also evil for a black person and a white person to get married.
You are too prejudiced to be taken seriously. learn a thing or two and then come back.
This is stupid. The only
This is stupid. The only argument you make is some brand of ridiculous new-age nonsense. Try to find me one scientific or scholarly definition of sex that uses the words "yin and yang". And to deny the existence of gay people is silly. Maybe you should read more books and less blogs so you can know who is truly being dumbed down.
Oh! And BTW, Anonymous, I
Oh! And BTW, Anonymous, I just read one of your lower-down rants. A menstruating, volitile woman and an arrogant, know-it-all man? Damn, one good fine upstanding Christian marriage ya got there, buddy! Good fer YOU!
The voters in California
The voters in California have overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8. Clearly the will of the people is *against* gay marriage. So, how do you figure that the Republican judges are operating against the will of the people? Haha! It is the Democratic legislators that were subverting the will of the people, the judges simply upheld the will of the people. What a clumsy attempt to toss up straw men, by pretending that everything legislators do is the "will of the people". I guess, according to Mark Fiore, our legislators know our will even more than we do. I suppose you agree that impeaching Clinton was the will of the people too, right Mark? Everything the legislators do is the "will of the people? Does that include when federal legislators vote against gay marriage? Oops, didn't think about that one, did ya? Sometimes legislators work against the will of the people, that is why we have three branches of government to balance out the power, but then you know that... your cartoon is just a puerile, base attempt at sophistry that happily fails and fails badly.
Oh yes, Mark... without gay marriage, gays are condemned to the clubs to party all night long! Ugh. Give me a break, just because you can't get married doesn't mean you have to go out and party in clubs. Way to toss up straw men again, there Mark.
Gay people have all the rights that married people do in California, the only reason they want marriage there is to force their views on the majority of people who think living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. They hope (in vain) that if they can marry we'll suddenly think they are "normal" like the rest of us... wrong. Nothing is going to change the mind of the voters that gay marriage is wrong, even gay marriage.
Some people think that since our forefathers designed our government to separate church and state, that means the separation of God and state... sorry, that is wrong. In fact, our forefathers founded our nation on the principle that God gave us our rights and the government must secure those rights. Our Declaration of Independence states that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, rights that the government cannot interfere with. Marriage is an institution that was established by the Creator. It is a right that was given by God. Redefining marriage to include gays, redefines marriage for *everyone*. The government has no right perverting the definition of marriage and thereby interfering with the rights of (heterosexual) people in this country that are married. This country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, which protects our rights to worship as we please and protects our religion from government interference. The government needs to get it's nose out of the religious institution of marriage.
I think it's truly sad that you think (Mark Fiore) that gay people need marriage to be able to have a committed, stable relationship. Are you saying that without marriage they are unable to help themselves and are compelled to go out and party, and cheat on their partner? Shame on you! I think gay people might have a thing or two to say about that.
Whooooooooooa there dude,
Whooooooooooa there dude, the founding fathers were DEISTS, meaning they believed in a general higher power, but no particular "God" per se. Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? I bring it up because it shows that old T.J. definitely wanted God out of government (Thomas Jefferson is of course one of the most celebrated presidents in the history of the nation).
Now, in Mr. Jefferson's Bible, he went through page by page, line by line of a twin set of the New Testament, cutting and pasting only the acts of Jesus which he felt embodied the prophet's philosophy. Actually, let me redact "prophet" and replace it with "philosopher," since that is of course how Jefferson viewed Christ-- as a man. What President Jefferson did away with was all the bits about miracles and angels, since according to him they were added in later "to appeal to the Pagans."
If you look up the beliefs of the Masons, to which all of the founders belong, you would find that they held a belief in a general sort of incomprehensible power-- not any particular god, but just some force that was beyond human comprehension. To say that the founders were simply Christian because they invoke the use of the word "God" in the Declaration-- NOT THE CONSTITUTION-- is ludicrous. God here is a concept, not concrete. It is a metaphor. The force greater than man has given to him these rights. No Jahova or Jaweh or Allah.
Also, there's a gigantic, glaring error in your argument. Again, going back to the "inalienable rights" of man (which include life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness) you claim that marriage is a right. It's apparent that you lack any sort of education on the Constitution and the Declaration (which you erroneously cite as law... but that is an entirely different discussion). First of all, the Declaration of Independence IS NOT LAW. While it does exist as a useful philosophical framework for the United State's moorings, it is by no means a legal document. Indeed, it is very illegal since at the time of its writing it constituted a form of treason against the British Commonwealth since it signaled our active refusal to obey British laws. Second, nowhere in EITHER of these documents is marriage mentioned. It is an issue left to the states to determine their own marriage laws. Again, let me emphasize STATE-- it is left up to state government, not voter referendum, to establish this definition.
Third, being the Biblical scholar you are, I would like to know if you've heard of the Curse of Ham? This is the part in the Bible where Ham is marked by God as being evil. Often this mark was taken to mean black skin. Now, it doesn't take a PhD candidate to realize that this Biblical passage could have been used (and indeed was used) to justify the exploitation and enslavement of African peoples. Now, surely you wouldn't posit that the institution of slavery was a great triumph for human progress. Surely, you wouldn't be so dense as to think that this warping of the Bible wasn't utterly and profoundly wrong. So then how can you sit there, claiming Biblical authority that gays are inferior? How can you trust the "word of God" that was written in an attempt to draw in more worshipers? How can you really tell me that there is anything that stops a gay person from being a normal, functional, happily married member of society? Are you going to sit there and denounce the struggles of Dr. King and Ghandi as bunk? Honestly, I hate you.
"Marriage is an institution
"Marriage is an institution that was established by the Creator. It is a right that was given by God."
um no... marriage was established within villages so that their would be no question as to who the father of the children are......
Marriage is not a sacrament;
Marriage is not a sacrament; it's a social contract. Pagan people also had marriages, endowed by THEIR creators. This is why early Christians looked down on marriage.
The Founding Fathers were, by and large, Deists, and not Christian at all. Furthermore, we're not just protected in our choice of religion by the First Amendment, we're protected FROM it -- and, thankfully, from people like you.
If it were up to folks of your particular mindset, miscegenation laws (sorry to use a word with more than one syllable in it, I know that's probably hard on you...and yes, is it obvious that you piss me off? Good!) and Jim Crow laws would still be in effect. The subject of homosexual civil rights needs to be taken out of the hands of The God Almighty Majority and placed where civil rights questions belong -- the Supreme Court.
This country was founded upon the dissemination of freedoms, not their limits. While we've had our setbacks -- which is what I consider small-minded crap like Prop. 8 to be, and nothing more -- my hope is that it will continue moving in that direction.
> Marriage is not a
> Marriage is not a sacrament; it's a social contract.
'Civil unions' are a social contract. Marriage is a sacred institution.
> Pagan people also had marriages, endowed by THEIR creators.
And being that their oaths, deities, ceremonies, marital duties, and legal responsibilities were completely different from those of Christian marriage, they would fall into that 'civil union' breadbasket too.
> This is why early Christians looked down on marriage.
Because a Newsweek article told you so? I implore you to read the comprehensive debunking here.
> The Founding Fathers were, by and large, Deists, and not Christian at all.
Another crock. Accurate statistics are posted here.
> ...in our choice of religion by the First Amendment, we're protected FROM it...
Which would be just peachy if the constitution guaranteed you the right to subvert religion and/or the right to call civil unions 'marriage' against the will of the majority.
> If it were up to folks of your particular mindset, miscegenation laws ([smartalec comment]) and Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.
Still more crockery, given that the Bible condemns racism and makes no racial distinctions whatsoever for living wholly in Christ.
You forget that the families that formed the underground railroad were Christian. The soldiers that fought in defence of America during the civil war were largely Christian. The families in Canada that took in slaves fleeing from America, gave them land, supplies, and a future were virtually all Christian.
Slavery in America was the engine of capitalist greed. Racism and segregation are the fruits of arrogant people placing their own self-interests before the good of their nation. If either group of people listened to even the most basic of Christ's teachings: "Whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.", neither injustice would tarnish your nation's history.
> The subject of homosexual civil rights needs to be ... placed [in] the Supreme Court.
And I find myself replying to yet another desperately confused proponent of judicial oligarchy.
a.k.a. The majority doesn't support my view on this issue and hence I will cede my democratic power to a judicial ruling council, mindless of the fact that I cannot reclaim it.
The State-Run Sacrament forum has my long diatribe as to why your willingness to divest yourself of your democratic right is lunacy. Read it if you're interested.
> This country was founded upon the dissemination of freedoms, not their limits.
I agree: Freedoms like the ability to establish traditions, and to prevent them from being commandeered by those who long to divest them of their spiritual value.
> While we've had our setbacks -- which is what I consider small-minded crap like Prop. 8 to be, and nothing more -- my hope is that it will continue moving in that direction.
It will, worry yourself not.
But try not to look surprised when you find out what side of the aisle the myopic 'small-minded crap' is truly coming from.
After all, those who don't know history...
Regards,
COTO
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams
"> This country was founded
"> This country was founded upon the dissemination of freedoms, not their limits.
I agree: Freedoms like the ability to establish traditions, and to prevent them from being commandeered by those who long to divest them of their spiritual value."
Wrong. The Constitution describes how the three branches of the government operate and sets the requirements for voting them into office. The Bill of Rights and other Amendments don't grant us rights; they prevent the government from abridging rights we are assumed already to have.
"> Pagan people also had marriages, endowed by THEIR creators.
And being that their oaths, deities, ceremonies, marital duties, and legal responsibilities were completely different from those of Christian marriage, they would fall into that 'civil union' breadbasket too."
Evidently you believe only Christians have real marriages. That's your right; but others have the right to disagree and not to have to live according to your belief, even if you represent a majority. The founders knew a thing or two about religious oppression, which is the reason behind the First Amendment preventing the establishment of a state religion--even the Founders' own religion, Christian or otherwise. If the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples is based on religious reasons, the government has no business enforcing that restriction.
> The Bill of Rights and
> The Bill of Rights and other Amendments ... prevent the government from abridging rights we are assumed already to have.
This is just semantics. The issue then becomes whether the right to perform gay 'marriages' in church is a 'right we are assumed already to have'.
> If the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples is based on religious reasons, the government has no business enforcing that restriction.
As I've posted in earlier links, the marriage license provided by the state is a secular contract with the state as the principal party and the man/woman as a subordinate party. To this extent, state 'marriage' has the same anatomy as a civil union. It is also to this extent that the state has jurisdiction over the sacrament of marriage.
The ability to call the secular contract 'marriage' and to dictate whether churches must consecrate and honour these unions falls a considerable ways outside of this jurisdiction. In a free and democratic society, policies outside the jurisdiction of the state are decided by the people--the democratic majority. And we (the tyrannical majority) say 'no'.
If you're incapable of understanding why I abhor homosexual 'marriage' (and I've certainly made a detailed prima facie case over the past year), I sympathize with your desire to 'do right' but maintain that your stance is morally wrong, and that the people, for whatever their own reasons are, agree with me.
> The founders knew a thing or two about religious oppression, which is the reason behind the First Amendment preventing the establishment of a state religion.
Which has what to do with the current argument?
This is about forcing an existing religion to abdicate one of its long-held sacraments, not the establishment of a state religion.
>If you're incapable of
>If you're incapable of understanding why I abhor homosexual 'marriage' (and I've certainly made a detailed prima facie case over the past year), I sympathize with your desire to 'do right' but maintain that your stance is morally wrong, and that the people, for whatever their own reasons are, agree with me.
With the exception of the people of several states, and more coming down the pipe... As to the "moral" assertion, I believe a line from Mr. Orwell fits your argument best:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
So, you may want to change the avatar from that cat to something more piggish.
The bible is a collection of
The bible is a collection of myths just like any other collection of myths. It is sound and fury signifying nothing, just like the above post. It is time for people to begin using the brains evolution gave them, and quit following scrawls of new testament myth that was written in very poor Greek. And as far as following biblical law goes, I'll bet if I came to your house, I'd find bacon in the refrigerator and suits of mixed wool and linen in your closet. It's so convenient how Christians pick and choose what parts of their Bible to foist on other people.
> ...I'll bet if I came to
> ...I'll bet if I came to your house, I'd find bacon in the refrigerator and suits of mixed wool and linen in your closet...
I don't eat pork or shellfish. I adhere to the biblical food laws, as should all Christians.
The 'clothing made of two threads' statute reflects the fact that (at the time) the threads in such clothing would shrink at different rates when washed. The garment would eventually end up looking terrible. It's actually a condemnation of dressing shoddily.
This is explained later in Leviticus, and then touched on in... I think... Isaiah. Have your Bible and concordance handy and look it up. ^___^
This little exchange should
This little exchange should offer insight to anyone who's trying to figure out whether the Taliban lives under cover in the US. Yes, it's that stupid.
Marriage was historically a
Marriage was historically a social contract that was based on the dissemination of property--the female was considered property,as was her dowry; the marriage contract had less to do with sacredness than with forging social bonds. Those who theorize on the origins of marriage suggest that it was a means of establishing alliances. Although Christian marriage was allegedly a sacred sacrament, its fundamental commercial/secular character had the same underpinnings until the notion of romantic love was invented relatively recently. Biblical marriages were often polygamous, so I imagine that's okay too, since its being in the Bible makes it sacred, as was incest and offering one's children up to be raped.
The Constitution does not say that you cannot subvert religion. And remember that you live in a republic. Because the majority of a population can be wrong (i.e., the majority of southerners in the 50s and 60s thought segregating blacks from whites was "peachy"), the notion of a republic hopes to provide justice to all of its citizens by having elected representatives look out for the rights of ALL of their constituents, not just those greatest in number.
The Bible does not condemn racism, nor does it condemn pedophilia or rape. The Bible does condone slavery and the oppression of women, as well as genocide (just ask the Moabites, if you can find one) and the murder of homosexuals and children who disobey their parents. Christians have done many good things throughout history. They have also burnt witches based on uninformed magical thinking, conducted the Inquisition, used the Bible to excuse slavery (read Frederick Douglass), subjugated women for millenia, and encouraged people to uncritically adopt Bronze Age ideals as if they are somehow universal absolutes, and to do so without subjecting the information to reason and questioning.
Those who choose to make distinctions between the old and new testament do so without the blessing of the savior, who said that he did not come to change the old laws. Therefore, if you are going to hold the Bible up as some sort of moral standard (and a twisted set of morals it proposes), you must accept all of its teachings as being sacred, not just the ones you like. How then do you decide what is the word of God and what is not? Even the new testament states that women should cover their hair and behave as second class citizens, disparages homosexuals, and states that Jews are displeasing to God. Is antisemitism a form of not condoning racism?
> Marriage was historically
> Marriage was historically a social contract that was based on the dissemination of property...
This is akin to saying 'Music was historically played to forewarn of a coming war.'
Marriage, like music, was used for many things. You're pulling one of it's ten thousand functions out of your hat.
Perhaps you misunderstand my position: I am fully aware that the broader 'marriage' extends beyond the parameters stated in the Bible. As it stands now, the law of the land is compatible with Biblical doctrine. This isn't surprising, as 'marriage' was, despite all bellyaching to the contrary, established per the rules and traditions of JudeoChristian marriage.
This is a good thing. I have spent hours in these forums clearly detailing why this is a good thing. The 101 marriage alternatives (although kindly madam is right to point out their historical existence) are irrelevant to the origins of marital law in the US and the continued support of this law by the Californian voters.
P.S. You might not want to take a gander as to how many world societies included homosexuality in their definition of marriage.
> ...allegedly a sacred sacrament...
As opposed to the unsacred sacraments? ;)
> its ... character had the same underpinnings until the notion of romantic love was invented relatively recently
I seem to recall that 1782 was when romance was invented.
Pardon my sarcasm. Yes I admit: Biblical marriage is more concerned with marital rights and responsibilities than with 'romance'. Thankfully, it's a moral code and not a book on dating advice, otherwise I'd be debating you on how the Bible 'unfairly proscribes romance'.
Your criticism is the very reason why marriage advocates continue to fight the good fight. Marriage is the blueprint for the lifelong unification of man and woman. It is the foundation on which a prosperous family is based. Romance, eros and 'warm fuzzy love' are a part of the picture, but they fall well short of the stable construct that Christian marriage provides. Family is the nuclear unit of society; traditional marriage reflects this fact.
> Biblical marriages were often polygamous, so I imagine that's okay too...
It was, until Christ came to fulfill the law.
> ...as was incest and offering one's children up to be raped.
Given that both Genesis and the Darwinian model describe humans as originating from a small pool of individuals, getting around incest up to the time of Noah would be pretty... ehm... impossible.
Laws prohibiting incest were given to the ancient Israelites. The law was fulfilled (made complete, and therefore stricter) at Christ's coming.
Speaking as to child rape, I haven't the foggiest what you're referring to. Bring up specific examples if you care to discuss.
> Because the majority of a population can be wrong...
So campaign to change their minds. I certainly am. Democracy is based on the belief that men and women can self-govern. You 'murder democracy', as Adams put it, if you forsake that right and offer it to a judicial overlord when the majority disagrees.
A democratic society lives or dies by the heart and minds of its citizens--not by what's mandated in the courts. I've posted several examples of the bad fruits that court-mandated 'tolerance' has brought about.
> The Bible does not condemn racism, nor does it condemn pedophilia or rape.
You're right, if you ignore Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, Acts, Corinthians, Galatians, ...
> The Bible does condone slavery and the oppression of women...
I could write a book on this. Short answer: certain types, and no. The slavery practiced in America it most certainly does not condone. Debating 'oppression of women' with a feminist is a lost cause; I've yet to find one that can comprehend why a 38-year-old woman who has burned through five sexual partners, an ex-husband and two careers is every bit as 'oppressed' as one who embraces her privilege and responsibility in raising a family.
If you want a good historical perspective on how quickly society melts down in the thrall of feminist views, read Lenin, Trotsky, and take a look at how Russia is doing today. The demographic reality is that the Russian population is shrinking into oblivion faster than any other people on Earth. Furthermore, their women are as unhappy or unhappier than any other women on Earth, despite having espoused the 'glorious liberation of women'.
*Huff* *huff*
I'll presently skip the genocidal, infanticidal, witch-burning, Inquisition-conducting, slavery-excusing, women-subjugating, Bronze-age-living generic anti-Christian extravaganza for the sake of time (and wildly off-topicness). ^____^
> to do so without subjecting the information to reason and questioning...
Which is why Paul instructs us to 'test everything'? :)
I've questioned, tested, and debated Christian doctrines for more than a decade now. The more historical evidence I dig up and the more I live by Christian law and see the effects of not living by Christian law, the more I become certain 'the information' is solid gold.
> who said that he did not come to change the old laws...
"I come not to change the law, but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and Earth have passed away not one jot nor tittle shall pass from the law."
Christ came to fulfill the law. As I've said: to complete it and to make it stricter. He commanded us to love our neighbour. He condemned racism, lust, arrogance, bigotry, and dogmatic thinking. He made complete the laws proscribing family and marriage, disallowing (as we've discussed) polygamy.
He did not do away with the old law.
I adhere to the commandments, the tithing laws, the festivals, the food laws, the laws concerning worship, etc., etc.
> ...you must accept all of its teachings as being sacred, not just the ones you like.
You are absolutely right. ;)
I wish that more Christians understood this.
> ...and states that Jews are displeasing to God.
Because, as we just pointed out, they didn't accept the fulfillment of the law. The reasons why Judaism was 'displeasing to God' are clearly, logically spelled out. Given that Christ himself was descended from the scepter tribe of Judah and adhered to all Jewish customs, making an argument for antisemitism is untenable at best.
*Whew*
So, although this post was 70% defending my religion rather than discussing homosexual marriage, I do enjoy the discussion.
Regards,
COTO
"Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith."
- Saint Francis of Assisi
COTO, You wrote: "[Christ]
COTO,
You wrote: "[Christ] made complete the laws proscribing family and marriage, disallowing (as we've discussed) polygamy.
He did not do away with the old law."
The old law, as I'm sure you're aware, allowed for polygamy. These two statements of yours stand in opposition to one another if you are trying to be strict about how to interpret the words of Christ today.
On that note, I think it's a stretch to take what Jesus didn't say about polygamy and assume that it is tacit approval. I also believe it is a stretch to take what he did say about divorce and assume it to be a condemnation of all gay relationships or a prohibition against same-sex marriage. At best, Jesus was more silent on this issue than we would like. But I would argue that his was an inclusive ministry, taking people who had been 'otherized' by society and bringing them into the fold. Biblical example after example shows this to be true. This continues beyond Jesus' day, by the way: Acts 10-11 depicts Peter having a vision, a personal revelation which fundamentally changes the old interpretation of who had access to baptism and the kingdom of heaven. Without that re-interpretation which broadened things beyond the limitations of the old law, most of us who are Christian today simply would never have gotten access.
Here's the issue as I see it. Queer people (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc.) are manifestations of God's diverse creation. Some queer folks are Christians. They should therefore have access to the same Christian sacraments, rituals, fellowship as anyone else, including marriage. If your church doesn't want to allow this, no problem (well, I think it's a theological problem, but certainly the law shouldn't prevent y'all from believing whatever you will).
But if my church, for example, affirms same sex marriage, then why is it the government's job to block this? Here's why this happens presently: because marriage isn't simply a religious ritual, it is a collection of state rights. Why should your particular religious interpretation of marriage be favored over mine, thereby blocking access to the religious ritual of marriage of queer people at my church?
Religious marriage and secular rights should be kept separate, or be extended all people on an equal, rather than religiously discriminatory basis. Would you agree?
In peace,
Tom R
> The old law, as I'm sure
> The old law, as I'm sure you're aware, allowed for polygamy.
Christ added several new laws. His coming was a fulfillment of the law, as it says in the Book of Matthew.
Disallowing polygamous relationships was one of the strictures added at the time of Christ's coming.
There were also laws added that condemned lusting after a woman with the eyes, disobeying our human rulers, hating our enemies, etc.
Christ also served as the perfect sacrifice, doing away with the need for the animal sacrifices that symbolized his sacrifice until his coming.
But these changes didn't do away with the laws and statutes, and all of the new laws are explicitly described. Furthermore, the New Testament certainly does include renewed condemnations of homosexual behaviour. An excellent synopsis is available here (I posted this elsewhere in this forum, methinks).
> They should therefore have access to the same Christian sacraments, rituals, fellowship as anyone else, including marriage.
They can do as they please. My point is that a Christian's first duty should be to diligently seek out God's will (without any bias or preconceptions about what they feel is 'right' or what they really, really want to do) and to adhere to his laws despite the groanings of their passions and their society.
If you are interested in putting God first rather than trying to find some religious justification for what you believe is right, I'd ask you to take a good look at how God views homosexuality in the Old Testament. I'd ask you to look up the New Testament scriptures reaffirming this view (as listed in the reference that I provided above). And after doing this, without preconceptions, ask yourself: is this a behaviour that God approves of?
My enduring belief is that you will come to the conclusion that 'No, He does not.'
Simply because our society glorifies homosexuality, tells us that it's 'right', and condemns anyone who thinks otherwise as "bigoted" doesn't negate this fact. In case you have eyes to see, our wondrous society is going straight down the crapper like all societies before it. No small part of this decline stems from man's undying belief that society can collectively discern right from wrong, when this is simply not the case. This is at the core of Christian beliefs.
> Here's why this happens presently: because marriage isn't simply a religious ritual, it is a collection of state rights.
So call it a 'civil union', and keep it utterly separate from traditional marriage.
If you go back through the comment history in this forum, you'll find that my main grievance with homosexual unions is that they're called 'marriage'. Given the history behind the term, I'm well within reason to consider "marriage" to have religious underpinnings. And in my view, anchoring 'gay marriage' to marriage is a desecration of the sacrament. It wipes out the spiritual value of the term in the same way that the heterosexual sins of infidelity and divorce have already tainted it.
Many non-Christians don't understand that marriage is a sacrament in the Church. The fact that the state happens to administer the legal aspects of marriage in our society is of no consequence. Personally, I believe the authors of the US Constitution didn't mind the state administering the legalities of the rite since they'd never imagined that modern-day LGBT advocates would use the Constitution to gut 'marriage' into a pointless civil ceremony.
> Religious marriage and secular rights should be kept separate, or be extended all people on an equal, rather than religiously discriminatory basis. Would you agree?
Yes. Your wording isn't terribly clear.
I'm still looking for that one individual that can explain to me why gays and lesbians can't merely engage in "civil unions"--perfectly religion-free legal instruments administered by the state, with the same tax and entitlement privileges as heterosexual marriage.
Other than the fact that this system blatantly acknowledges that civil unions are not marriage, people's secular rights would be equal in both camps.
Personally, I appreciate the ability to discriminate (which, in case you've forgotten, means the same thing as 'differentiate') between ceremonies with religious significance, and those whose significance ends on a piece of paper in a government records office.
People scoff at the 'slippery slope' argument, but honestly...
If you take spirituality out of marriage, you get 'two people living together that have undertaken vows of commitment for tax benefits'. Eventually, why not 'two whatevers living together that have undertaken vows of commitment for tax benefits'?
And then, why not 'two whatevers living together for tax benefits'?
By the time generation text hits 40, a "marriage" will be a guy getting a tax break for living with his blow-up sex partner. And if you don't believe me, talk to somebody in generation text.
RE: Other than the fact that
RE: Other than the fact that this system blatantly acknowledges that civil unions are not marriage, people's secular rights would be equal in both camps.
Separate but equal is not equal. There should not be an exception made, there should not be separate institutions. One law should govern, and it should be secular, just, and rational.
RE:By the time generation text hits 40, a "marriage" will be a guy getting a tax break for living with his blow-up sex partner. And if you don't believe me, talk to somebody in generation text.
Your slippery slope argument makes no sense either. A blow up doll is not legally alive, just as a dog, cat, or robot is not a person.
RE: marriage is a sacrament in the Church
As well as in the Mosque, the Synagogue, the Taoist temple, and in many other cultures and contexts (religious or otherwise) across the earth. To say marriage is strictly and only Christian is, to be blunt, making an ignoramus of yourself. Even ATHEISTS get married. It is a tradition, I'll admit, but not one particular to any group. Then the question arises, why not to homosexuals?
Now you will probably say, all Biblical stories and citations aside, that marriage must be between a man and a woman. The more rational view, however, sees marriage as a contract between two consenting parties. Consent here is the key, because it implies that both parties are rational and understand the nature of the contract they are about to engage in.
It still, however, preserves the home, since one can see it as the social contract of the home. It is not merely that this is a legal document or a file in the state's cabinets, but that it establishes what the day to day functioning of the household will be. Think of the vows taken in a Christian ceremony. Don't these seem to dictate what could be taken as a sort of law of the home? Now then, why should gays be denied from engaging in the same sort of ceremony? Why should they be denied what has become as you put it integral to society?
Just as a general comment, it is a sad state of affairs in the world post-Enlightenment. For all the struggles of the French and American Revolutions, for all the battles won against mental and physical tyranny, for all the gains we've made, we are still unable to reach a humanistic understanding of the world. Especially in the United States, the ideas of Locke and Rousseau remain lost to time, neglected and unheard of. The printing press was supposed to enable knowledge to flourish, but humanity as it is prefers its bondage to ideas belonging to dead civilizations. Even the power of the internet seems diminished in its ability to liberate the minds of people above old prejudices towards new moralities rooted in rational thinking and logic.
Although I haven't verified
Although I haven't verified all of Mr. Watt's claims in this excerpt, it's worthwhile to listen to for the 'other side' of the slippery slope argument.
The Slippery Slope that Doesn't Exist
The comments concerning Jacqui Smith, Ms. Harman, and the NCCL are all corroborated by (heavily buried) snippets in the MSM.
> Separate but equal is not
> Separate but equal is not equal.
Correct, sir (or madam). The ability to distinguish between the two, which implies inequality, is the point.
> One law should govern, and it should be secular, just, and rational.
Fine. Since existing marital law has been considered secular, just, and rational for more than 200 years now, you'll have no trouble accepting the secular, just, rational, and traditional definition.
> A blow up doll is not legally alive, just as a dog, cat, or robot is not a person.
Nobody cares. Or should I say: nobody will care. Humans in a free society push to engage in the behaviours they find personally acceptable. Many secular, just, and rational arguments, as you put it, can be made to support the union between man and something not deemed a 'legal partner'.
After all, if a man chooses to wed his android and this implement brings him joy and fulfilment, who are you to question his choice? Who are you to deny him the right of happiness? He certainly isn't hurting anybody. It's closed-minded bigots like you that will vote for 'Prop 35': 2021's attempt to restrict civil marriage to 'two human parties'.
> To say marriage is strictly and only Christian is, to be blunt, making an ignoramus of yourself.
Perhaps you should check your demographics before flinging around accusations of ignorance. Even in today's pleuralistic society, the religious numbers are painfully clear: 76.5% adherence to Christianity, 1.3% adherence to Judaism, 1.2% aherence to Taoism, Sikhism, Islam, and Humanism combined. When the foundations of marital law were laid down in America, adherence to JudeoChristian doctrines was at least 96.4%, as composited from information here.
Marital law in America--and most especially 'religious' marital law--is JudeoChristian in origin. Since modern demographics overwhelmingly support this fact, the laws of our society should also reflect it.
> Consent here is the key, because it implies that both parties are rational and understand the nature of the contract they are about to engage in.
Firstly, 'two rational, consenting parties' is a condition already subsumed by traditional marriage.
Secondly, there are dozens of legal precedents for contracts that don't require explicit consent from the affected parties. A crafty lawyer (backed by progressives, human rights activists, and the legions demanding their 'rights') could easily override the 'consenting' legal impediment. You're foolish to think otherwise.
Thirdly, very few people understand the nature of the current U.S. marital contract. If you don't believe me, educate yourself.
> Why should they be denied what has become as you put it integral to society?
Put simply: because they wish to inherit the privileges, symbols, rites, (and in a religious sense, blessings) of marriage without adopting the concomitant laws and responsibilities. One of these laws is that both a committed father and mother are necessary for a successful (healthy, godly, spiritual) family.
Supposing that you had researched this and believed it, as I do, you would admit that it is by all means a 'just and rational' defence for traditional marriage.
> Especially in the United States, the ideas of Locke and Rousseau remain lost to time, neglected and unheard of.
Perhaps, oh enlightened one, some of us have perused the thoughts of Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Rousseau, Plato and others, considered their arguments critically, and taken what worked--left what didn't.
Humanism is barely a speck on the religious landscape due to the very fault you're condemning: its tenets are irrational. It holds that humans have intrisic value just because. The correct degree of 'moral liquidity' is left to the discretion of the individual. Self-important philosophers cobble together moralistic hash, convince themselves that it's rational because they thought really hard about it, and then abandon it at the first sign of stress or moral dilemma.
> ...but humanity as it is prefers its bondage to ideas belonging to dead civilizations.
Yeah, like those old duffers that based our courts on 'dead civilization' British commonlaw.
Or Locke and Rousseau. Old Britain and old France are good and dead. Why value the wisdom of their philosophers?
> ...towards new moralities rooted in rational thinking and logic.
Perhaps sir or madam should spend less time expounding on the value of 'rational thinking and logic' and more time endeavoring to conform his/her arguments to these high ideals.
Best Regards,
COTO
Let's get something clear,
Let's get something clear, you bigoted stains. Gay people and homosexuality are *normal*. It occurs in every single species, including ours, and it can't be changed or "cured". And letting gays marry each other is no threat to any of us straight people. My husband and I aren't going to get divorced just because our gay friends get married, and our two sons aren't going to be scared for life by learning to love and appreciate people who are different from them. The same holds true for *all* marriages and *all* children. That is the truth. And if you can't handle it, then the problem is with *you*, not with the gay people.
Well some one woke up on the
Well some one woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. You’re really going win over converts with your "bigoted stains" comment...
Anyway personally I could care less what "gay" people do. It’s their business. When it comes to marriage though is when things get cloudy.
Marriage was originally set up by religion, yes religion that doesn't accept gays as "normal".
Government recognizes the benefits of marriage because it provides stability in families as well as procreation (i.e. the next generation) and so gives incentives for people to marry to provide stable homes for the next generation.
Since marriage is religious in origin, it’s defined along heterosexual lines. I can see how demanding that they call it "marriage" is a offense to every religious person as they believe religious marriage is a joining of a man and a woman under God and homosexuality is something they believe God is against and so would never sanction such a marriage under their beliefs.
Anyway back to the civil aspects, how does a gay couple marrying benefit society? They can't procreate but I will conceded that if a piece of paper brings the stability to their relationship allowing them a stable home to adopt “unwanted children” in, then who cares. Just call it something else like civil unions so that religions institutions aren’t AS offended and don't demand them to perform the ceremonies or support their adoptions as per their right under the 1st amendment. Follow this and 90% of the "issues" the majority of people have with it will go away.
On a closing note, I have a hard time believing gay is "normal". Sexuality even in a scientific sense is for self gratification and for procreation. Since gays can't procreate, they are doing it for self gratification (which technically according to die hard religious followers is also a sin). Assuming that statistically speaking they were "born" that way, something must have "gone wrong" with their development because if a species has too many gays, procreation drops and a species would go extinct. My point is there are too many "gays" to be normal statistical probability or ‘accident’. It’s a choice for many (I’ll concede again that there is a chance that some are born that way but not all) and they have every right to make that choice. Just like every religious organization has every right to condemn their actions. Again under their right to freedom of religion, they shouldn’t be forced to accept or honor it under the duress by the “sword of government”.
lots of straight people
lots of straight people don't/can't "procreate", b ut they can get married..
sorry that your "religion" condemns anything that isn't done to just enjoy life. If I'm not busy making babies. I shoudn't have sex? How strange.
Along similar lines..all the people that can't stop making banies///you should close your zippers because the world has grown to overpopulated to support the people on the planet.
We are all born the way we are..nobody was asked before they were boen if the wanted to be gay
I think you should do some research into what you say before you say it
So sorry I'm not as normal as you are
Thank you for not
Thank you for not aggressively attacking my post.
I never said my religion condemns "anything that isn't done to just enjoy life" I was trying to put forth a compromise between the gay rights advocates and the religions that do condemn gay marriage.
I never said being gay was wrong and I have done extensive research on both sides of the issue. I was taught from a young age that the truth is usually some where in the middle of any discussion and so don't usually form my own opinion until doing research on both sides. I don't think being gay is just “another sin” like many religions teach. However I have a difficult time believing that every single person that’s gay was born that way. As an engineer from a purely statistically sense, the odds that there is a God would be much higher than that many "genetic divergences" of the same kind existing. So like I said the truth is probably some where in the middle, ie some are born that way but for others it’s a choice. I know several people in my community that are friends for example that were straight, "decided" to be gay after hanging out with gay friends, but fully admit that they plan to have a heterosexual marriage so that they can have a traditional family. Would they be gay, straight, bi, confused victims of social norms? It’s their decision and their choice but honestly it doesn't affect me so I could care less.
The funny thing is opinions are like butts everyone has one. The problem is when one group’s opinion is forced upon another. Like in politics at some point there needs to be a compromise because neither side can have its way. The compromise will most likely be temporary but without it, we have a society filled full of hate and chaos.
"Well some one woke up on
"Well some one woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. You’re really going win over converts with your "bigoted stains" comment..."
What do I care? Bigots aren't reasonable, so reason isn't going to reach them. Don't like that? Tough. I call them like I see them.
"Anyway personally I could care less what "gay" people do. It’s their business."
This is the traditionally understated bigot-speak for: "EWWWWW! COOTIES! KEEP IT OUT OF MY SIGHT!"
"When it comes to marriage though is when things get cloudy."
It doesn't get cloudy at all. Unless, of course, you believe in the silly "traditions" argument which is based on falsehoods and lies.
"Marriage was originally set up by religion, yes religion that doesn't accept gays as "normal"."
Ah, you *do* believe in the silly "traditions" argument which is based on falsehoods and lies. Newsflash: no it wasn't set up by religion. It has always and only been strictly a social contract, until very recently when religion started poking its nose in for economic reasons (the apportionment of inheritance and dowries created all kinds of opportunities for taxes and land grabs). Indeed, numerous religious sects thought it inappropriate for the church to get involved at all. The Puritans, who came to America via the Mayflower, felt that way.
"Government recognizes the benefits of marriage because it provides stability in families as well as procreation (i.e. the next generation) and so gives incentives for people to marry to provide stable homes for the next generation."
And gee, all that is true for gays as well. Or are you also opposed to gay adoption and artificial insemination? And if actual procreation is so important, then why do you allow the marriage of opposite-sex couples who are infertile, or too elderly to bear more children, or who can bear children but refuse to for whatever reason?
"Since marriage is religious in origin, it’s defined along heterosexual lines. I can see how demanding that they call it "marriage" is a offense to every religious person as they believe religious marriage is a joining of a man and a woman under God and homosexuality is something they believe God is against and so would never sanction such a marriage under their beliefs."
The problem there is that, aside from the fact that the "religious origin" argument is unadulterated lies, American law must be religiously neutral. Constitution Amendment 1 says so, and Amendment 14 says that the states must also obey that restriction. So if your revulsion toward equal marriage rights is religious, too bad for you; you're not allowed to write your religious beliefs into law.
"Anyway back to the civil aspects, how does a gay couple marrying benefit society? They can't procreate but I will conceded that if a piece of paper brings the stability to their relationship allowing them a stable home to adopt “unwanted children” in, then who cares. Just call it something else like civil unions so that religions institutions aren’t AS offended and don't demand them to perform the ceremonies or support their adoptions as per their right under the 1st amendment. Follow this and 90% of the "issues" the majority of people have with it will go away."
Screw your religious sensibilities. You have no right to push them onto the rest of us. If you don't like that, tough. This is America, not a fascist theocracy like Saudi Arabia. And kindly spare me the lie about churches being forced to marry gay couples. Churches have always been free to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) as they see fit. That won't change just because the government stops letting homophobic bigots write their gay-hate into law.
Besides, your argument here is against *all* marriage, not just equal marriage rights for gays. If a piece of paper (i.e. legal recognition) shouldn't be necessary for a gay couple, than it shouldn't be for a straight couple either. But for some reason, you seem to think that it *is* special enough to sanctify marriage for a straight couple. That being the case, it has special significance. And by denying that same special significance to gay couples, you are explicitly violating the Constitution. Specifically, Article 4 Clause 2 Section 1; and Amendment 9. Both parts say that all Americans have equal rights, and neither part is appended with the note, "This clause null and void for gays." And let's not forget Loving vs. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court declared quite explicitly that marriage is a fundamental right, not a privilege, for all Americans.
"On a closing note, I have a hard time believing gay is "normal". Sexuality even in a scientific sense is for self gratification and for procreation. Since gays can't procreate, they are doing it for self gratification (which technically according to die hard religious followers is also a sin). Assuming that statistically speaking they were "born" that way, something must have "gone wrong" with their development because if a species has too many gays, procreation drops and a species would go extinct. My point is there are too many "gays" to be normal statistical probability or ‘accident’. It’s a choice for many (I’ll concede again that there is a chance that some are born that way but not all) and they have every right to make that choice. Just like every religious organization has every right to condemn their actions. Again under their right to freedom of religion, they shouldn’t be forced to accept or honor it under the duress by the “sword of government”."
Are you really this abysmally ignorant? You think 1 in 10 humans being homosexual is a lot? That's just about average compared to most species. And you really think that ignorant homophobic bigots like you will be forced to change your stripes just because the government finally stops letting you legally discriminate against gays? There are plenty of racists who still hate other races despite the non-discrimination laws that have been put in place over the past 40 years. The KKK and Neo-Nazi groups still have an easy time recruiting. I assure you, gay-haters like you will be similarly unmolested. You'll be able to believe whatever you want; you just won't be allowed to treat gays like sub-humans or second-class citizens anymore.
I wasn’t going to even
I wasn’t going to even dignify your dribble with a line by line response. You would probably just twist it in your hateful mind to say what you want it to any way but I thought I would for the other readers/posters.
1. Religion came before the United States and our country was founded on many Christian principles. I'm sorry you find that offensive. I didn't bash your lack of faith even though I find it offensive and so I would appreciate an adult response from you and not bash mine.
2. The constitution does not give freedom FROM religion but freedom OF religion. Gay groups have been trying to force Churches to marry them, religious based adoption clinics to give them adoptions, etc. through lawsuit. Civil unions with all the rights of a married couple aren’t enough they must be MARRIED! These things are in clear violation of some people’s religious principles and if YOU use the sword of government to violate that then its you who are oppressing others views and rights. Whose rights/views are more important? I am advocating a equal system where the only difference is a name. Heck call all heterosexual marriages “civil unions” that were not done in a church setting and I would feel the same way. Marriage is reserved for a religious joining, civil union for a secular one. You are advocating the oppression of religion.
3. I specifically said gays had every right to be joined in a social NON RELIGIOUS contract with every right given to married couples. How ever you appear to be too full of "hate" to see that I was agreeing with you on this point and instead bashed my opinion like an emotional teenager...
4. Yes I do believe 1 in 10 being gay is too many. Since you only speak "secular" talk, what benefit is it for nature to produce gays? Darwin's theory of natural selection dictates that this "adaptation" would go extinct since it doesn't benefit the species. It doesn’t help them procreate, it doesn’t help them get food, it doesn’t help them survive, etc. So in my opinion its like Albinos or any other genetic defect. I don’t exactly see 1 of out ever 10 people Albino or with a 5th limb… I also didn't say people weren’t "born" that way what I said is its a life style CHOICE for many and a choice they have every RIGHT to make.
5. Finally I resent you even remotely associating me with gay bashing/gay hating, racism or any other ism you can imagine. I have many friends and family that are gay and I love them dearly. It’s their life style and their choice. I support their choice even if I don't personally agree with it and hate “gay bashers” just as much as anyone. I specifically said in my post that gays have every right to do as they wish and so long as they/you don't force those who disapprove to "sanction their marriage", "approve their adoption", etc. I'm talking about private organizations here now government sponsored ones. That means if a religious charity is assisting with adoptions and receiving government aid, they can't "discriminate" against gays but a private religious one which gets no government support, has every right to.
You are just a hateful individual completely intolerant of others views. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you and instead of being an adult; you act like a raving lunatic. Its people like you and the gay rights groups that give the "gay rights movement" a bad name. You guys make the religious right and their "treatment" of gays looks loving in comparison...
Now this is a post I'd like
Now this is a post I'd like to see some comments on from both sides of the argument. As far as I can tell, this argument represents the views of the majority of Americans, and it certainly matches mine. In fact, I'd like to know if anyone that posts here can see a problem with this as a fair and practical solution to this (somewhat overblown) national issue.
Marriage is a badge of
Marriage is a badge of honor. It is a silver star, a purple heart, a meritorious service medal. Until you live as a `partner' with someone who has a different psychological and physical structure, you don't know what marriage means. Until you have to tip-toe around a menstruating, volatile woman, or a stubborn, angry, know it all man, you are just playing house. Same sex unions are not, and can never be, a marriage. Marriage implies a union of two distinct genders as a single unit. Two men or two women can never experience the trials of a man/woman marriage, and therefore, the word itself loses meaning. It is an insult to hetero commitment, a slap in the face to Christianity, and a mockery of tradition. Aside from all that...the rectum was not designed as a two way street. Homosexual males report incontinence, pain, lesions, and so on. By design, the gay lifestyle is doomed to extinction without converts. This is the vital point of the gay marriage push. Like any cult, they must have converts. Hard to make converts without offering legitimacy....
FYI - Not all gay males
FYI - Not all gay males practice anal intercourse. And since lesbian sex is statistically safer than even heterosexual intercourse, your argument is weak.
You've left out any mention
You've left out any mention of the civil union compromise. I've heard all of the arguments against gay marriage and aside from calling homosexuality a cult I can respect all of them. What I'm interested in is seeing how opponents of gay marriage react to the idea of civil unions. It seems to me that making the joining secular eliminates most of the issues under discussion. Thoughts?
Most opponents of gay
Most opponents of gay marriage, myself included, will tolerate a civil union.
It isn't marriage, but it isn't called 'marriage'.
It isn't sanctified by scripture, but it isn't performed in a church.
It isn't based on the holy institution of marriage, but it isn't portrayed as being tantamount to it.
It is a sterile legal contract wholly separate from marriage, and much more difficult for third parties to confuse the two.
In a decade from now, when 'free thinkers' and 'repressed minorities' start legally sanctifying unions with their pets, family, android companions, multiple spouses, etc. under the 'civil union' blanket, the LGBT crowd will realize how farcical and fragile the concept truly is.
In a macabre sense, it's not hard to see why so many are adamant that it be called 'marriage'. They'll need to anchor it to the ancient tradition of marriage just to prevent it from degenerating into an all-inclusive joke.
"It isn't based on the holy
"It isn't based on the holy institution of marriage, but it isn't portrayed as being tantamount to it."
Actually, I'm talking about a secular recognition of stability and commitment that would, in a legal and civil sense anyway, be tantamount to marriage. Obviously from religious and cultural viewpoints it may or may not be, but that's more or less what equality under the law is about, right?
"It is a sterile legal contract wholly separate from marriage, and much more difficult for third parties to confuse the two."
Fantastic! Problem solved then, right? Aside from the overarching problems involving the collapse of our civilization that you've gone into in other threads, of course.
"'free thinkers' and 'repressed minorities'"
Atheists and gays, or gays and gays? Not trying to be combative; just looking for clarification.
Your closing argument brings to my mind the story of the Sneetches. Is marriage superior for being an old(er) tradition, for being popular, for being religious, or what?
> Actually, I'm talking
> Actually, I'm talking about a secular recognition of stability and commitment that would, in a legal and civil sense anyway, be tantamount to marriage.
How is 'civil union' not stable or committal?
Outside the fact that it doesn't involve covenanting with God to honour and cherish one's mate, with spiritual penalties for divorce and infidelity?
Have you considered that homosexual marriage is perhaps intrinsically 'quasi-marriage'? It's backed by nothing but some government papers and whatever morals the participants happen to fancy at the time it's put on the books.
I think even a few of the fiore.com hardliners will admit that slapping a 'marriage' nametag on it and forcing it into the churches won't make it any more stable or committal for those who obviously couldn't care less about its spiritual aspects.
> Aside from the overarching problems involving the collapse of our civilization that you've gone into in other threads, of course.
One battle at a time. ;)
As an observation: Fiore.comites aren't interested in the 'overarching problems'. Most have bought wholly into the Republican/Democrat dialectic where any attack on one party's policies are interpreted as an endorsement of the other party's policies. Either party can peddle the legislative equivalent of nuclear waste with impunity.
I'm sad to report that even our esteemed Mr. Fiore jumped on the Obama express. He seemed to think that $150 billion additional taxation on the rich would somehow offset more than a trillion dollars of new spending promised by Obama. (The point is of course moot now since bailing is in the 7.2 trillion range and the rich are getting an additional 300 billion tax cut as part of the 'stimulus'.) Our esteemed patron also completely ignored Obama's principal role in engineering the sub-prime crisis, and lauded the senator's endorsement of the abysmal TARP bill as 'calming the economic storm' in a glowing bit of soundbitery not soon to be rivaled.
Of the half-dozen-or-so times I pointed this out, I was criticized a half-dozen-or-so times for 'stumping for McCain'. To coin a term used by one of the... ahem... 'lesser endowed' forumites, I was 'riding around in the WAAAAHmbulance'.
So I'll pontificate on marriage. ;)
> Atheists and gays, or gays and gays? Not trying to be combative; just looking for clarification.
I appreciate your tact. ^___^
'Free thinkers' is a term used by sites such as skeptic.com, nobeliefs.com, moveon.org, etc. to describe people that share the beliefs of the host website/community.
The sites usually try to link the terms to great scientists and philosophers (many of whom would find such an association repugnant) in the hopes that readers are feeling so good about being 'free thinkers' by the time they're being spoon-fed propaganda that they fail to realize it.
It's one of those wonderful Orwellian terms.
'Repressed minorities' is equally ubiquitous. It's thrown around fiore.com a lot, where it can mean literally anything. Gays. Atheists. Children. Cows. My point is that it can easily expand to bestalists, necrophiliacs, polygamists, mechaphiliacs, pedophiles, or any other minority whose practices are 'repressed' by the majority.
> Is marriage superior for being an old(er) tradition, for being popular, for being religious, or what?
In short: Yes, no, and yes.
Go through the comment logs here and you'll find pages upon pages of my expounding on why.
- COTO
P.S. Never a good idea to mix Sneetches and politics. (Seuss probably wrote the book as an allegory for antisemitism.)
You know your problem with
You know your problem with bringing god into every argument about gay marage is it asumes all heterosexual marages beleive in god, my athiest friends are MARRIED not in a "civil union" does that mean they're making a mockery of marage and whatever else too?
HERE HERE! :D
HERE HERE! :D
If they perform the marriage
If they perform the marriage in a Church and/or claim their marriage is tantamount to Biblical marriage, then yes.
Unfortunately for homosexuals, same-sex marriage is an act, which can be banned; a heterosexual pledge to honour wedding vows with no intention of upholding these vows is merely a thought. We can't ban thoughts, nor should we ever attempt to do so.
Unlike homosexual marriage, the Bible permits divorce under certain circumstances rather than categorically condemning it. Christian organizations therefore campaign to discourage divorce (and the conditions that lead to it) instead of banning it outright.
I think I've come across
I think I've come across wrong. I'm not in support of calling a union between homosexuals marriage of any kind for exactly this reason:
"slapping a 'marriage' nametag on it and forcing it into the churches won't make it any more stable or committal for those who obviously couldn't care less about its spiritual aspects."
I just wanted to be clear that for civil unions to "work" they'd have to be tantamount to marriage in every non-spiritual sense.
"backed by nothing but some government papers and whatever morals the participants happen to fancy at the time it's put on the books."
Isn't this all of human civilization? Moral consensus and some man-made legitimizing item(s)? Now, homosexual marriage may intrinsically be quasi-marriage because it's condemned in the Bible, but that's a different point.
"Most have bought wholly into the Republican/Democrat dialectic where any attack on one party's policies are interpreted as an endorsement of the other party's policies."
"Of the half-dozen-or-so times I pointed this out, I was criticized a half-dozen-or-so times for 'stumping for McCain'."
This is the result of a cornered political market, so to speak. With only the two parties wielding any serious political power, most people see their only choices as one or the other. The idea of an alternative generally doesn't enter the equation, regardless of the amount of talk about how all the power lies with the people.
As for allegories, the wonderful thing about them is that until/unless the author reveals the true intent behind his writing, it's a perfectly futile argument to say it was or was not about a certain thing. :)
P.S. Is it possible to italicize comments on the site, or must I write the comment in a word processor and paste it in?
> Now, homosexual marriage
> Now, homosexual marriage may intrinsically be quasi-marriage because it's condemned in the Bible, but that's a different point.
I'm trying to make the point that marriage, to a Christian, should be far more than a legal contract between two individuals.
Paring marriage down to a hollow legal union and insisting that it's the same thing as doctrinal (a.k.a. "traditional") marriage is an insult. It's insulting to Christians, whether or not you also believe it's insulting to God.
Civil unions are the lowest common denominator. To satisfy everybody (and they will have to satisfy everybody), they're doomed to become meaningless, sterile legal instruments bereft of any spiritual obligations. Would you, Leftist, really want to tie down marriage to an anchor like that?
> The idea of an alternative generally doesn't enter the equation...
I've always been astounded at how well the dialectic works.
> ...it's a perfectly futile argument to say it was or was not about a certain thing.
Perhaps you're right...... Sneetch-lover. ;)
Best Wishes,
COTO
P.S. You can include style styles directly with HTML markup. Mr. Fiore's site seems to support pretty much everything: <b>, <i>, <u>, <a>, <em>, <font>, <ol>, <ul>, <img>, etc., etc.
Some of ideas I agree some
Some of ideas I agree some of them very unbelieveable. Like It's very interesting to hear this bitterness toward gays and lesbians though. It sounds like you're saying that more people would vote Democratic and be sympathetic to Democratic initiatives in Congress if it were not for the party being saddled with this one divisive, "repulsive" issue.
That's an interesting idea,
That's an interesting idea, that gays are a liability for the Democratic Party.
The trouble is, a lot of gays and lesbians have ideals and beliefs that more closely resemble those of Democrats than those of the Republicans, so of course many affiliate with the Democratic Party.
It's very interesting to hear this bitterness toward gays and lesbians though. It sounds like you're saying that more people would vote Democratic and be sympathetic to Democratic initiatives in Congress if it were not for the party being saddled with this one divisive, "repulsive" issue, gay marriage.
If there were no gay people
If there were no gay people there would be no "L" word on Showtime and THAT would be a tragedy. Who cares who marries who other than corporate America who might have to spend a dime providing insurance coverage to the same-sex partner of one of their employees. The issue is money smoke-screened onto fundamentalists as a moral issue. More of the same Fiore! Hail Fiore!
As someone who is in a long
As someone who is in a long term LESBIAN relationship, I am happy to report that as of yet, we have NOT, I repeat NOT, been afflicted with any of the following: rampant disease, our blackened wizened souls have not as of yet drug us to the depths of hell, ( altho the credit card companies have tried) and Jesus has not rained down upon us the hellfire most of you seem to think we deserve.
Having said that,I do believe we should have the right to messed up and miserable marriages like a lot of you a**holes on here. I mean, lets face it....The hetros who are allowed to marry have already pretty much cornered the market on : child abuse, spousal abuse and all the other goodies that come with being in a "sanctified marriage".
So, except for the fact that I cannot see my wife in a hospital were she to be seriously injured, I cannot put her on my health insurance, and even just trying to buy a car together was a total adventure in homophobia, if being married means being miserable....No F**kin thanks....
Post new comment