|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
And Wednesday, I appologize for turning your thread into this mess...It was not my intention.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
How can having the same legal rights as hererosexual couples be considered "special rights"?
I didn't go to your site (I rarely do, old buddy!), WMod, but I will say something that I do with great difficulty.....ahem.....I agree with Whomod!(I need to take a shower now! ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
If it is the same right, it isn't a special right.
I agree.
I'd also like to take up the point that J-C ethics shouldn't be used when determining law for the sake of Seperation of Church and State.
While, I agree C/S should be fully seperated (I'll teach my son about Christianity myself, thank you very much!), you can't remove you value systems when deciding what the law should be in a set of circumstances.
Here is my theory: J/C ethics, in some form or another, account for a majority of American's moral code. Because of those teachings, many people have established a particular view of the world. Now, however they came to it, it is how they view the world. Now their views, in a democracy, should not be discounted simply because they are religious in nature. It is the same as if they had used any other philosopher (Aristotle?) to define their views on the issues.
The trick is, "because it says so in the Bible" is not an appropriate justification. But I do believe that "because it is immoral" and "because it undermines the very nature of the definition of marriage" ARE legitimate positions....even if they come DIRECTLY from one's reading of the Bible.
People get their ethics from whatever source they choose. They can't turn it off when it comes time to opine on the most important issues of the day.
I don't view it as a C/S issue at all. I view it as a moral code issue, which is how the laws are always made. I just enjoy that One Degree of Kevin Bacon in there to keep the issue from getting murkey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
You are using a faith that is historicaly noted for causing wars, burning witches, and attempting mass genocide to justify the 'evils' homosexuality will wreak on society? And that's not ignorance in it's most blatant form?
I really have nothing against you mate, but please recall that you started this. If the statement that you would actually oppose me, and my freedoms is not a bigger slap than simply referring to you as ignorant...Well you let your christian concience weigh that one out.
And last, before you start singling out homosexuality as the supreme evil in the world, please re-read your bible...as last time I checked, things as common as looking at another woman with desire, having sex before marriage, and judging your fellow man were held on par as 'sins' just as 'evil' and worthy of God's wrath.
![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
Ok, first thing...
ig-no-rant: adj. 1. Without education or knowledge. 2. Exhibiting lack of education or knowledge. 3. Unaware or uninformed. (Houghton Mifflin American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition)
Hmmmmmm. Interesting. Without education or knowledge. I have listened to your arguments and the arguments of others with the same beliefs, and I am well-acquainted with your side of the issue. To call me ignorant just because I don't agree with what you say - well, that just doesn't show much maturity at all.
![[whaaaa!]](eek01.gif) I should feel guilty for 'opposing you and your freedom'? Well, damn! I had no idea you were magically protected from disagreement! Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from opposition. You can make yourself out to be some kind of victim all you want, but the number of ad hominem attacks and insults to my intelligence you've made might diminish the amount of sympathy you get. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[izzat so?]](graemlins/zatso.gif) Singling out homosexuality as the supreme evil? Wait a minute, I'll go check... Hmmm... it would appear I never made any such statements! In fact, I repeatedly stated that "I'm no better than anyone else", "Homosexuals aren't any worse than anyone else", and other such statements as well. The Bible does say that all sins are equal, which is precisely why I said those things. The difference is that you're basically expecting me to approve of legislation that attempts to make one of those sins legally legitimate. I'm simply maintaining that my conscience wouldn't permit me not to say anything about it. If you have a problem with that, then you're the one who's insulting what I believe, which might make your 'I'm the victim' approach a bit less defensible.
And then there's that whole evils of Christianity argument. Now that's scraping the bottom of the barrel. I love it when people search endlessly until they find people who are even remotely associated with a religion - even if their actual practices are completely against that religion's principles - and use things they did decades or centuries ago to instantly discredit any argument based on the sacred texts of that religion. If that's not religious prejudice, I don't know what is.
I can't stand that 'you must hate me because you won't let me have my way' mentality. It's like dealing with a four-year-old kid! It is entirely possible for me to respect you as a person without agreeing with every single thing you say. I have been extremely patient and understanding throughout the course of this thread. I'm getting tired of hearing the same tired whining that I'm some sort of Nazi out to deny you your very existence. I didn't come in here saying we should outlaw homosexuality or send gays to concentration camps or anything of the sort. In fact, I said several times that I have respect for homosexuals and would like to help them. But it appears you won't be satisfied until everyone approves of your agenda, and until then, you feel the need to keep discrediting them with your personal attacks on their character, beliefs, whatever, all the while making yourself out to be the victim of bigotry and persecution. A little hypocritical, I feel.
Thanks for playing. Next question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Alright, I'll let your comments stand as is. I cannot do a better job af arguing against your stance than you have yourself. And really, I've realized that people like you cannot be reasoned with. You know what's right and wrong, and damn anyone who doesn't fit your defenition.
Like I said, I had no intention of starting an argument in Wednesday's thread here, and I have no issues with you outside of this. So, we'll just let this go now, eh? Let's go fight about comic book continuity glitches, it's more fun and much less likely to spark an emotional response from either side.
Truce? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Yeah, dude. You had some pretty cool stuff to say in the Video Games forum. ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I actually thought Capt. Sammitch's post (the one prior to the video game post!) was quite interesting.
It was a pretty well reasoned post.
Though I don't agree, I recognize the anti-homosexuality (or even Capt.'s more moderate stance, anti-gay marriage) as a legitimate political opinion.
I think there are many who simply hate gays, but I think there are people who legitimately think it is immoral and wish the laws to reflect the morals to which they subscribe.
Right or wrong is subjective. But I feel it is legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
It's not about "hating gays". I think my opinion is a bit more strident than Capt. Sammitch's. But even I advocate basic rights for gays as people.
I just draw the line at a point where legal precedent does not undermine the rights of Christians and other non-gays, and pervert Christian traditions out from under them.
It's a balance between the rights of gays -vs- the rights of Christians.
The name-calling and comparison of any non-gay views as ignorant, Nazis, witch-hunters, etc., is completely hyperbolic, antagonistic and groundless. Please show me here where anyone has advocated the extermination of gays in a witch-hunt/Nazi fashion.
In a democratic society, gays have the right to exist, live together, and practice their lifestyle.
Gays do not have the right to force their beliefs and ideology on the mainstream by manipulation of the legal system. They do have a right to live with basic freedoms, like everyone else.
Marriage in the Judao-Christian tradition is, again, one man, one woman, and a ceremony before God. It is a religious practice. gays do NOT have a right to pervert the definition of marriage, and arbitrarily change a standard that has existed for at least 6,000 years.
Gays have the right to live together, and possibly create their own traditions and ceremony for long-term commitment. They DON'T have the right to change and undermine others' tradition and beliefs.
And "gay marriage" changes the definition of marriage, and infringes on the rights and traditions of non-gays.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Please show me here where anyone has advocated the extermination of gays in a witch-hunt/Nazi fashion.
Reverend Jesse Phelps comes to mind off the top of my head. And wether or not you wish to literaly 'exterminate' a group of people or deny them basic human liberties that everyone else takes for granted, the ideology is the same.
Imagine for just a moment that the situation were reversed, and you had to live as a second class citizen. You were allowed to date your girlfriend, and hell, even let her move in. But those tax benefits, powers of attorney and rights to inheritence inheritence were denied you. Is that moral?
I want you to go to the video store and rent a film "If These Walls Could Talk 2". If the story of the widowed lesbian in her old age does not get you to see the point, then you are a cold, empty person indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
Klinton, I won't respond to your posts from this point forward. Your words are hyperbolic, insulting, and deliberately misrepresentative.
I can go anywhere in this country and find gay clubs, gay organizations, gay newspapers, and gay couples. I could, if interested, go into any video store and rent gay porn.
Your "persecution" is a lie.
And Reverend Jesse Phelps (whoever the heck that is) is not anyone posting to this topic. No one here within this discussion has denied providing gays basic benefits. I clearly stated I advocate basic domestic benefits TWICE in my posts above. Your attempt to say otherwise is deliberate misrepresentation.
I truly think gays only want to have Gay Marriage to undermine and harass the Christian community. Much like the guy who tried to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
My persecution is a lie ?
You tell that to my father, who's last exchange with me was that he wished I was dead. you tell that to my freind who had to have reconstructive surgery after being shown the error of his ways by well meaning chiristians. You tell that to the kids who can't take it and end their own life.
A lie indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
You have a right to live your life your own way. You don't have a right to expect others to accept it.
The same is true if someone chooses to be a Christian, a stripper, a smoker, a drug or alcohol user, a pedophile, a communist, or a thief.
I can cite many people who are gay or lesbian, who have families that accept them despite their gay lifestyle and their discomfort with it. Two are members of my own family, and no one in my family (myself included) has shunned them because of it.
As for the violence you mention, there are idiots everywhere. People can be attacked for being gay, having long hair, being women, being black, being asian, or being white. Being gay doesn't put one in a category that is solely exposed to harassment and violence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Which brings us back to my original statment in this thread. Wednesday....as has been clearly demonstrated in here, yes I agree that this somthing society needs to move towards. But in this day and age, people are just not ready to handle it. Give it a couple generations, and possibly.
I'm sure nobody arguing against me in here is an overall bad person...But when it comes to overlooking religious bias (and it always seems to boil down to that) and treating a gay or lesbian as an equal human being, a legal declaration of one's sexuality is like painting a giant target on your forhead.
Imagine if I was looking for employment from these individuals and the subject of my marital status came up. Do you think I'd get the job?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Do you truly believe, klinton, that society will ever be ready? Not to sound pessimistic, but it has been my experience and learning that bias and prejudice has and always will exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
I'm sure nobody arguing against me in here is an overall bad person...But when it comes to overlooking religious bias (and it always seems to boil down to that) and treating a gay or lesbian as an equal human being, a legal declaration of one's sexuality is like painting a giant target on your forhead.
Imagine if I was looking for employment from these individuals and the subject of my marital status came up. Do you think I'd get the job?
At every job I've worked for the last 10 years, I've worked with co-workers who were openly gay.
Again, the gay persecution is an invention that doesn't gel with my own reality.
And you ignore that "gay" is a religion of sorts as well.
( i.e., a belief system, with a dogmatic ideology, primarily of which is the belief that homosexuality is not an abberant desire like pedophilism or smoking, but is instead an inborn genetic trait, that rationalizes the lifestyle. And rationalizes legally forcing recognition of gayness as if it were a protected minority, like blacks, whites, asians and hispanics.
Whereas others, like myself, believe that "gay" is a behavior, a habit, a lifestyle choice, not subject to special minority status. Many have left the gay lifestyle, taken wives and become Christians. )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Yup. I do. This is something we've moved away from, not a new concept we need to establish. Looking at homosexuality as a deviant and immoral lifestyle choice is the product of religious bias. History is littered with cultures that accepted it as the norm and even held it in esteem.
Society existed before the church and all of it's trappings, and will continue to when it's gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
That was for Wednesday.
And Dave, I thought you said that you didn't want to discuss this anymore. We're not gonna agree here, and as I said to Sammich, I really have no interest in butting heads over this. I'd rather ahare a few laughs over stupid comic book ideas than try and justify my existence to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
A few thoughts:
I think klinton made an unfair debating move here. I think he took positions to which Dave does not subscribe and forced him to defend them.
Just because this Rev. Phelps (he is the guy who danced on Shepperd's grave right?) wants to persecute, doesn't mean Dave does.
Dave's take is probably that Phelps is an evil idiot.
Let's not make Dave defend things he hasn't offered as his position.
But now to turn the tables on Dave:
How does legal recognition of these marriages infringe upon the rights of Christians (a distinction I myself hold)?
Couldn't the government allow legal marriages without endorsing them as J-C marriages (which with a seperation of C/S shouldn't be specifically J-C)?
So, then couldn't the churches, as they ARE private organizations, fail to recognize such marriages and STILL allow legal recognition?
Again, I tend to agree with Dave more than I disagree. But these are important questions I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
DtWB, do you believe that federal and state laws should reflect today's Judeo-Christian beliefs? Not and attack; just a question to help me get a better handle on where you're coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Willie...he asked for an example...I delivered one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
Do you truly believe, klinton, that society will ever be ready? Not to sound pessimistic, but it has been my experience and learning that bias and prejudice has and always will exist.
"Bias and prejudice".
Or "moral standards".
It depends on your point of view.
Block labelling someone as having "bias and prejudice" for being true to their Christian teachings is rather biased and prejudiced as well.
It shows favoritism to the gay belief system, over that of the Christian belief system.
And under the law, we all have rights to our own beliefs and practices, where they do not infringe on the rights and lives of others.
Again, I think gay marriage infringes on the rights and beliefs of Christians, because it changes the tradition that has existed for 6,000 years as defined in the Christian Bible, and in millenia of human law (which is based on the Bible, especially American law)
Gays have a right to create their own spousal traditions. They DON'T have the right to change the definition of marriage.
Which is, again: one man, one woman, in ceremony before God.
The Bible clearly has a different opinion of homosexuality.
As does millenia of human law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Befoe we go any further with the whole "marriage is a Christian institution" I think you need to read up on just what marriage currently is, and has been throughout history. It is an evolving institution that has taken many forms and served many ends...and has been integral to other ideologies besides Christianity. You and your church do not hold a patent on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
DtWB, when I spoke about bias and prejudice, I was not referring to you, but the people of society who are biased and prejudiced. Many people simply hate homosexuals "because" and feel that it's "just not right" without any knowledge to defend their views. These are the people who I fear will never be changed, simply because they can not be reasoned with.
In fact, when I made that post I had only read klinton's last post, the one addressed to me. I did not read anything you wrote until later.
For the record, I suspect you may be as informed as I am. We simply have views 180 from each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The Bible clearly has a different opinion of homosexuality.
As does millenia of human law.
The second statement is incorrect, plain and simple. If you read the original article that started all this, you'll see that other countries in the world have legalized same-sex marriage.
J/C does not equal human. Not by a long shot.
I'll take Sammitch's advice, and refrain from commenting on the first statement...in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
I think klinton made an unfair debating move here. I think he took positions to which Dave does not subscribe and forced him to defend them.
Yes. I felt obligated to respond to what I see as fallacies and misrepresentations raised as fact.
They are common misrepresentations, so I gave an obligatory response.
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
But now to turn the tables on Dave:
How does legal recognition of these marriages infringe upon the rights of Christians (a distinction I myself hold)?
Because it forces Christians to accept a standard of "marriage" that goes against 6,000 years of tradition and Judao-Christian biblical teachings. And forces Christians to accept a legal standard that is in polar opposition to what Christianity teaaches marriage to be.
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Couldn't the government allow legal marriages without endorsing them as J-C marriages (which with a seperation of C/S shouldn't be specifically J-C)?
That is precisely the point. It forces Christians to accept a standard that undermines and contradicts Christian teachings. Under secular law, absent of a Gay Marriage precedent, you can argue that it doesn't undermine Christian teachings or infringe on their rights.
But with a Gay Marriage legal precedent, then Christians are forced to accept the same standard as gays. Which clearly undermines Christain culture, and forces Christians (and others who don't believe in gay marriage) to accept something that is clearly decadent according to their beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
So, then couldn't the churches, as they ARE private organizations, fail to recognize such marriages and STILL allow legal recognition?
No, because the new legal standard would undermine Christian religious freedom.
Christian businesses, for example, would be forced to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, which is in clear contradiction of Christian beliefs. Which would be a travesty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I truly think gays only want to have Gay Marriage to undermine and harass the Christian community. Much like the guy who tried to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Those blasted high tech gays and their quasi-future gay beams! They're at it again!
Sorry, couldn't resist ![[who, me?]](graemlins/whome01.gif) .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
That's the thing though Wednesday...Everyone tries to pussyfoot around the religion issue, but that's where the roadblock exists. That is the underlying argument whenever someone argues against gay and lesbian rights...so how can it go unaddressed?
It's all fine and good for someone to state that it's 'fine that you're gay, but I don't have to accept or let it infringe on my rights'...but why is it unnaceptable to them to turn it around and say 'it's fine that you're christian but I don't have to accept it or infringe on my rights'?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The Bible clearly has a different opinion of homosexuality.
As does millenia of human law.
The second statement is incorrect, plain and simple. If you read the original article that started all this, you'll see that other countries in the world have legalized same-sex marriage.
J/C does not equal human. Not by a long shot.
I'll take Sammitch's advice, and refrain from commenting on the first statement...in this thread.
Respectfully, Wednesday, I firmly dispute this. The tradition of marriage goes back 6,000 years at least, in both Biblical law and broader human law, across many cultures.
Yes, other nations (Belgium and the Netherlands, and now Canada) have legalized gay marriage, but that has only been in recent decades, and I would wager that in the populations of these countries, an overwhelming majority would say that despite this being the LEGAL standard for marriage, that REAL marriage is a man and a woman, and that gay marriage sure as hell doesn't fit THEIR OWN standard.
Technically , yes, you're right, other states have accepted gay marriage, very recently.
But that is a manipulation of human law, that a majority of humans do not, and never will, accept.
As I said, gays have a right to their lifestyle choice. But they do NOT have a right to change the well-established millenia-long definition of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Because it forces Christians to accept a standard of "marriage" that goes against 6,000 years of tradition and Judao-Christian biblical teachings. And forces Christians to accept a legal standard that is in polar opposition to what Christianity teaaches marriage to be.
J/C beliefs about marriage do not go back that far. They are much younger than that.
Also, again, law can not be written to reflect one religion's belief system, even if this is a "Judeo-Christian country."
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
But with a Gay Marriage legal precedent, then Christians are forced to accept the same standard as gays. Which clearly undermines Christain culture, and forces Christians (and others who don't believe in gay marriage) to accept something that is clearly decadent according to their beliefs.
I feel I may need to bring it to your attention that not all Christians feel the same way that you do on the matter. There is quite a split, in fact, with more people on the side of beliefs opposing yours than you might think.
I also would like to add that, for the reason stated above, I don't feel you should be attacking the religion itself, klinton. It's all about how things are interpreted.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Christian businesses, for example, would be forced to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, which is in clear contradiction of Christian beliefs. Which would be a travesty. [/QB]
Not true, since they would not be married in the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Wednesday, you're right. I guess my anger fudged my presentation....I do believe in the basic principles that Jesus laid out for his diciples. It is the path that the church took in his abscence that I disagree with. I cannot accet the judgmental institution that we see today as something that he would have endorsed, and take solace in the fact that I will be judged by his hand, and not the church.
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone previously, I never meant any disrespect to Christ himself and wouldn't dream of attacking him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
No offense taken (by myself, at least). I'd say more than its fair share of this last page and a half has been emotionally over-charged. Nothing to be taken to heart.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I still don't see how it infringes upon religious beliefs. There are MANY things that are contrary to Christian ideology that are perfectly legal.
I guess I can see your "we have to pay them benefits" argument, but that seems like a tangent of sorts.
Another question for the sake of discussion:
Do marriages under Islam or Hindu faiths offend the nature of J-C or are they acceptable as long as they comply with J-C standards?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Because it forces Christians to accept a standard of "marriage" that goes against 6,000 years of tradition and Judao-Christian biblical teachings. And forces Christians to accept a legal standard that is in polar opposition to what Christianity teaaches marriage to be.
J/C beliefs about marriage do not go back that far. They are much younger than that.
Also, again, law can not be written to reflect one religion's belief system, even if this is a "Judeo-Christian country."
WRITTEN Judao-Christian tradition does not go back that far. The Bible (in the form of the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) goes back to about 1400 B.C.
That was the point where written language began.
But the Judao-Christian tradition goes back much further, to Adam and Eve, to the birth of civilization.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
But with a Gay Marriage legal precedent, then Christians are forced to accept the same standard as gays. Which clearly undermines Christain culture, and forces Christians (and others who don't believe in gay marriage) to accept something that is clearly decadent according to their beliefs.
I feel I may need to bring it to your attention that not all Christians feel the same way that you do on the matter. There is quite a split, in fact, with more people on the side of beliefs opposing yours than you might think.
I also would like to add that, for the reason stated above, I don't feel you should be attacking the religion itself, klinton. It's all about how things are interpreted.
Those "Christians" who say that are doing so in blatant rejection of Biblical teachings. If your standard for creating religious thought is something other than the Bible, then one is, by definition, NOT a Christian, or representative of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Christian businesses, for example, would be forced to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, which is in clear contradiction of Christian beliefs. Which would be a travesty.
Not true, since they would not be married in the Church. [/QB]
It forces acceptance of something "detestable" to God (Leviticus 20, verse 13, among others), and falsely presents it as a "marriage" endorsed by God. And forces Christians (and other non-gays) to accept this standard.
It forces Christians to condone, employ, provide benefits for, and accept a lifestyle that in every way corrupts and distorts Christian teachings.
That is most certainly a travesty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I said I was done but saw some more stuff. Klinton, I'm sorry about all the stuff people did to you or your friends in the name of Christianity. Believe it or not, that angers me as much as it probably angers you. Jesus never threw stones at people who did things He didn't like. He didn't excuse their behavior, but He didn't hate them for it, and He certainly didn't visit physical violence on them. Still, the messenger is not the message. I sincerely doubt that the individuals you have mentioned speak for the whole of Christianity. I myself have been on several service projects to help the gay community, whether it's helping them find food and clothes (there are lots of homosexuals on the streets too, guys), bringing food and medicine to shut-in gays who are now terminal AIDS patients (and that was an eye-opener), or any number of other things. Clearly, I do not see homosexuals as second-class citizens, nor do my actions suggest that I do. But that still doesn't mean I approve of or agree with the things they do. And that's why I am opposed to laws that would keep them doing the same things or cause others to slip into that lifestyle. I don't see my faith as something that compels me to persecute gays. But I'm not willing to go against my principles just so I can rubber-stamp something I don't believe in for the sake of avoiding controversy. Okay, now I'm done. Please, nobody drag me back into this - I haven't even looked at the other forums yet! ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
Do marriages under Islam or Hindu faiths offend the nature of J-C or are they acceptable as long as they comply with J-C standards?
Willie, I cannot make the corruptive nature of forcing Christians to accept homosexuality more clear.
Homosexuality is a belief system in total opposition to Biblical teachings, that would be legally forced on Christians through American law, if enacted into law. That clearly infringes on the freedom of Christians (and others who reject gay marriage) to practice their religion and what they believe.
Islamic marriage (which is arguably an offshoot of Judao-Christian teachings, and largely recognizes the Bible, although with some clear distortions), Hindu marriage, and secular marriage, are ALL still within the common definition of one man and one woman.
Being one-man/one-woman in their standard as well, these other religious cultures are therefore compatible with Christian marriage, within the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Because it forces Christians to accept a standard of "marriage" that goes against 6,000 years of tradition and Judao-Christian biblical teachings. And forces Christians to accept a legal standard that is in polar opposition to what Christianity teaaches marriage to be.
J/C beliefs about marriage do not go back that far. They are much younger than that.
Also, again, law can not be written to reflect one religion's belief system, even if this is a "Judeo-Christian country."
WRITTEN Judao-Christian tradition does not go back that far. The Bible (in the form of the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) goes back to about 1400 B.C.
That was the point where written language began.
But the Judao-Christian tradition goes back much further, to Adam and Eve, to the birth of civilization.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
But with a Gay Marriage legal precedent, then Christians are forced to accept the same standard as gays. Which clearly undermines Christain culture, and forces Christians (and others who don't believe in gay marriage) to accept something that is clearly decadent according to their beliefs.
I feel I may need to bring it to your attention that not all Christians feel the same way that you do on the matter. There is quite a split, in fact, with more people on the side of beliefs opposing yours than you might think.
I also would like to add that, for the reason stated above, I don't feel you should be attacking the religion itself, klinton. It's all about how things are interpreted.
Those "Christians" who say that are doing so in blatant rejection of Biblical teachings. If your standard for creating religious thought is something other than the Bible, then one is, by definition, NOT a Christian, or representative of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Christian businesses, for example, would be forced to pay spousal benefits to gay spouses, which is in clear contradiction of Christian beliefs. Which would be a travesty.
Not true, since they would not be married in the Church.
It forces acceptance of something "detestable" to God, as a "marriage" endorsed by God. And forces Christians (and other non-gays) to accept this standard.
It forces Christians to employ, provide benefits for, and accept a lifestyle that in every way corrupts and distorts Christian teachings.
That is most certainly a travesty. [/QB]
The Bible has be translated several times since it was first written. The current Bible is not a verbatim transcription of the original text. But this is besides the point since whether or not homosexuality is "detestable to God" is an separate issue, as Sammitch pointed out.
Legalizing marriage does not force any religion to take any stance or accept anything. Separation of Church and State works both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
The Bible has been translated several times since it was first written. The current Bible is not a verbatim transcription of the original text. But this is besides the point since whether or not homosexuality is "detestable to God" is an separate issue, as Sammitch pointed out.
Legalizing marriage does not force any religion to take any stance or accept anything. Separation of Church and State works both ways.
Wednesday,
After you've spent so much time arguing the legal side of gay marriage, I find it difficult to believe you don't see the legal ramifications of legally recognizing gay rights in American law, and the way it would impose polar contradictions about gays and marriage on Christians.
I've spent extensive time clarifying this in my posts above.
If you choose not to accept or understand the logic of what I'm saying, so be it, but I cannot make it more clear.
~
I guess the only way to clarify is to show you specific Bible verses about Christianity. And demonstrate the clear contradiction these verses present to the concept of gay marriage.
I find it useful to post the origin of marriage as described in the Bible.
quote:
Genesis 2: verses 22-24
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
( courtesy of:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=all )
The standard has been such for 6,000 years or so, and I see no reason to change that standard for marriage, when it has been clearly defined and established for so long.
Gays can live together, if they choose to, but I fail to see why it is necessary to change (or pervert) the meaning of one of the Bible's most sacred institutions.
Marriage is a man and a woman united for life, witnessed with the approval of God.
Two men or two women do not fit that description, and are elsewhere described as a union "detestable" to God.
There is no margin for misunderstanding of what scripture says about marriage or what it says about homosexuality. the two are not compatible, without perversion of their true definitions.
~
Here's a sampling of what the Old Testament and New Testament have to say on the subject of homosexuality.
New Testament condemnation of homosexuality:
ROMANS 1, verses 18-32, in particular verses 26-29.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ROM+1&language=english&version=NIV
Also:
1 CORINTHIANS 6, verses 9-11
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1COR+6&language=english&version=NIV
And since Jesus also said "I and the Father are one"... ( (JOHN 10, verse 30)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+10&language=english&version=NIV
...and also JOHN 1, verse 1:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+1&language=english&version=NIV
...so everything God the Father said in the Old Testament is what Jesus teaches also. The two (God the Father, and Jesus) are different manifestations of the same person.
~
Some (not all) Old Testament verses about homosexuality (i.e., God's condemnation of it):
GENESIS chapter 18, verse 1, through chapter 19, verse 29 (Sodom and Gomorrah)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+18&language=english&version=NIV
LEVITICUS 18, verse 22
[ the quote is a commandment by God, to Moses, to be written down as law ]
quote:
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+18&language=english&version=NIV
LEVITICUS 20, verse 13
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+20&language=english&version=NIV
~
Jesus teaches that sin is forgiven through faith in Jesus as the Messiah/savior, because Jesus' life is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Forgiven, if they are past sexual acts that do not continue.
But homosexuality is still a sin. As are other types of sexual immorality.
~
Here are some counterpoints I answered on a previous DC topic:
quote:
Question previously asked by a gay poster:
So everything that God decreed in the Old Testament, Jesus upholds in his teachings?
So for instance, in Exodus 35:2 states that anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death?
So, I assume Jesus would condone the death of anyone working on sundays?
Or, according to Leviticus 11:10 eating shellfish is an abomination. Are those prone to surf and turf at red lobster going to hell on Jesus' watch?? and finally (for now)
Leviticus 11: 6 - 8 tells me that the touch of dead pig skin will make one unclean, does this mean Jesus will condemn all NFL players who are not in the habit of wearing gloves to eternal damnation?
( My response: )
The verse you refer to in LEVITICUS chapter 11, verses 1-46.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+11&language=english&version=NIV
It refers to Jews keeping a diet that sets them apart from neighboring peoples and religions.
It is a diet commanded to remain ceremonially clean, and at worst renders them ceremonially unclean until evening, if disobeyed.
John the Baptist (MATTHEW 3:4) ate Locust
--a food that clearly is not ceremonially clean-- to show that despite his not comforming to Jewish dietary laws, he was spiritually clean, although not ceremonially clean. And Jesus clearly approved of John the Baptist.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+3&language=english&version=NIV
The Sabbath (in LEVITICUS 23:3) is likewise ceremony to provide rest and worship, and there is no mention of punishment, and certainly not a death penalty.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+23&language=english&version=NIV
In contrast to homosexuality, where when practiced widely by a civilization, it is considered, Biblically, the mark of a civilization that has so displeased God, that God has ceased to provide any protection of that culture, and has abandoned it to its own self-destruction.
See again:
quote:
ROMANS 1, verses 18-32:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
As you can see, homosexuality is clearly defined Biblically as one of the most corruptive and decadent practices in human culture. I don't see that in any way compatible with the concept of "gay marriage", in a Christian setting.
Gays don't have to believe what I believe.
But they likewise cannot enact laws that infringe on MY beliefs, or my right to reject their lifestyle as something I don't wish to endorse.
Changing the legal definition of marriage does precisely that, and has all kinds of ramifications on Christian beliefs of family, sanctity, employment, and the ability to even teach in church that homosexuality is decadent.
(Which the Bible clearly defines above.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Some more two cents lol...
Okay, if any of my religious or legal logic is contradicting anything major, let me know. I am no lawyer and no priestess.
There are two types of marriages you can have in the US. A legal marriage and relegious marriage. Legal on is basically you sign a paper along with your spouse and you now are a legally recognized married couple with all the benefits and costs.
Then there is the religious marriage. I know in the Catholic faith, one must enter a six-month program before the wedding so the couple can make sure everything will work out -- they need to be able to solve difference etc etc etc since divorce is still shunned. I am not familiar with other demoninations.
Now, the government cannot say what defines a religious marriage. That is up to each denomination. If a certian church decides to allow a homosexual marriage, then that is up to them and not the governmant.
Likewise, none of the churches can stop a legal definition of marriage. They do not have to recognize a marriage outside of their own church. But I see no reason why a same-sex marriage in the legal sense can be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I understand completely. Same-sex marriages oppose conservative Christian views, I agree. I simply do not believe that homosexuals should be denied the right to LEGAL marriage based on RELIGIOUS belief.
I could turn the metaphorical table and say that marriage in itself should be made illegal because it opposes the beliefs of those who are morally opposed to the idea of the union of two people. The truth, however, is that American laws can not be made to suit the moral views of everyone, they can only be made to protect the liberties of the American people, homosexuals included.
Sorry about removing this post a few minutes ago. I have reposted my words, even though I believe my argument (in this post) is unsound.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
[ this was a duplicate of the post below, now deleted ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
I understand completely. Same-sex marriages oppose conservative Christian views, I agree. I simply do not believe that homosexuals should be denied the right to LEGAL marriage based on RELIGIOUS belief.
Gays have a right to some form of legal union, and call it something OTHER than marriage, so as not to change and undermine a long-established secular and religious definition of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
