Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

Joacqin, you have made this assinine claim before & it simply isn't true. Just because a religion hating person like yourself or bill maher thinks it is doesn't make it any more valid than a skinheads belief that jews are inferior. It plainly shows that if anyone is a 'phobe it's you.

 

Why are you opposed to gay marriage then? The essence of all arguments I have read here is: I do not approve of homosexuals so they should not be allowed to marry (because it would demean "real" marriages" some people add). Give me an argument to be against gay marriage that does not boils down to it not being ok to give equal rights to gay people.

 

Splunge, that is the dumbest thing I've EVER heard! Allowing gay marriages won't make the whole world gay! Do you think you need to be immunised against it or something?

Allowing gay marriage isn't a bad thing. I'm getting married next year but I'm also bridesmaid at a gay wedding. It won't make my marriage mean any less, in fact, it makes it mean more for the simple fact that it shows how much society has moved on. We can accept other people no matter what and that is the most important thing

 

For a lot of people it boils down to the basic essence of marriage, which is to continue your family (or bloodline if you will). Homosexuals can not do this, it's as simple as that.
I know(& am friends with) a fairly good number of gays(both male & female).
Some of them are as commited to their partners as the best married couples i know & some of them are as bad whoredogs as any of the hetero ones i know.
They are by & large just like everybody else However they can not fulfill the reason for a marriage : bringing children into the world as a family.
It has nothing to do with disliking or fearing gays, it is just impossible for them to complete a marriage, AS IT IS INTENDED TO BE.

Know you on the otherhand have clearly shown yourself, by your own words, to be a religiousphobe. Someone who actively hates & mocks religions(and those that do have faith in one), this clearly colors all of your observations on any subject dealing with religion & makes most of your points irrelevant due to the scorn you show the entire community.
Oh & sorry but marriage is NOT a right but a privilege, just like our stupid pres-elect seems to think a home is a right. No, you work hard to get yourself to a point where you can afford a home, you are not entitled to just have one handed to you.

 

I was going to respond with something rational, (like that Saint Paul was Roman and had a patriarchal view of both gays and women and that the two views are related) but your comment is such a cheap one, (like something a TV evangelist would make when he is asking for money) that I'm not going to bother. Sorry, my friend, but you are way too emotional over this for me to continue.

 

Okay, okay, how about this. Two dudes fall in love. One dude has a sister. Artificial insemination ensues; the dudes raise the kid after its born.

Now is it okay for the dudes to get married?

 

I'm not sure if you know this, but I was attempting to be ironic.

Only if they also both marry the sister.

 

Fine, fine. So what if it's two chicks and one has a brother? Have to marry the brother too?

 

No, not at all. The fact that, over a period of more than a thousand years they wrote hundreds of prophecies of the future, in detailed and specific form, and they came true does. Now, if in 1994 you wrote a prophecy saying that George W. Bush was going to command a war that lead to the death of Saddam Hussein, then I'd start asking you in-depth questions, but short of that...

Well, you should probably do more research, then. Decades later, yes, but all books were written as either first or second hand accounts, no third. As for the Council of Niccea(sp?), the text of the Bible was already pretty much set. All they did was officially say, 'Yeah, that's it for now.' The real purpose of the Council was to combat a couple of herasies, like Gnosticism, that had popped up again recently.

Well, I've already corrected about five of them, I think. Maybe a few more.

Yes, because Bill Maher is really the kind of person I want to trust my eternity to. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't take his word for it if he said he had a turkey sandwitch for lunch, much less that all religions are a curse on humanity.

I really wish you'd stop throwing that term around. You obviously don't even know what it means. Homophobia is a serious psychological disorder in which an irrational fear of homosexuals or things associated with them produces such a drastic reaction upon immediate exposure that it significantly interferes with their lifestyles. We're not talking about gay bashing here. We're talking about a guy hits on this guy and he goes fleeing in raw, uncontrollable terror. If someone on this board were fired from their job because every time their gay co-worker came into the room he or she had a full-blown panic attack and couldn't continue working for the rest of the day, you could call them a homophobe. Simply not liking the idea of homosexuality isn't homophobia, it's just not liking the idea of homosexuality.

 

Quickie before work, so if I dislike black people I am not a racist I just dislike black people? You have some weird definitions of words. This is just semantics (which large parts of this thread is) if you prefer the wording "dislike homosexuals" instead of "homophobe" I do really care. There is no argument against gay marriage except disliking homosexuals. Is that better?

Ah, we are down to prophecy now. I should make a checklist for when discussing religion they seem to follow the same pattern. NOG, if I write something sufficently ambigious and unclear five years from now you could probably turn it into pretty much whatever you want. It works like horoscopes, if you want to believe you will make sense of it. My position on religion is not based any detailed knowledge about christianity though so you could nitpick everything (most of which is under debate). The entire basic premise of religious faith is irrational, silly and yes stupid but it is a nice comfort for people I just do not think the price of that comfort is worth it.

Chandos I would like to continue this discussion with you, the nice and intelligent religious people always tend to withdraw from this discussion and I would like to hear the arguments from religious people who are a bit more progressed. As for cheap arguments, well there are so huge holes in religion that you don't really need to make sophisticated ones, cheap and strong ones are plentiful.

Martaug, are you sure you are against gay marriage? From what I have read about your opinions in the past and in this thread it seems like you are not opposed to the idea. It seems like you oppose it simply because it is a leftist issue. That is not as bad as it sounds, I have found myself opposing things coming from the right just out of habit.

 

So you write the prophets of the Abrahamic Religions off as stoned out freaks. They make a lot more sense then the hate filled bile you spew out.

But if enough people disagree with you then you get told to sit down and shut up.

You don't. The words are given, you receive the words of the current leaders, but you live your life. Most priests aren't far off on the most basic points. It's called learn and obey. You seem unwilling to learn what they have to say...

That6's what scared teh **** out of me--the fact that you see a lawless society as a grand thing. You describe a world where nobody has the right to tell another what's right or wrong, and ultimately a world where criminals go unpunished, because nobody has the right to punish them. Where is the freedom when we must constantly live in fear?

And your refusal to consider what's written because of the source makes Fred Phelps seem like a very open minded individual.

Because it makes a lot more sense than you claim it does. It also involves a bigger picture view that expands beyond the individual. The rest of that paragraph just descends to a patronizing insult.

I'll speak up a bit so you can hear me: IF YOU WANT TO KEEP GOD OUT OF IT, THEN DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. If the courthouse uses the word marriage, the religious term, then it is a religious matter, regardless of the intention of the officiator or the couple. You want God out of it, then don't use Marriage, Wedding, Husband and Wife. If you want God out of it, then make it a Civil Union between two Life Partners. The ball is in your court.

You use the Religious language, you accept the religious connotations. And whether you know them or not, you probably are abiding many of the religious requirements (as they primarily relate to spouse and offspring).

It's statements like that that show a refusal to see our position, making it seem ridiculous to you. But it's careless use of language by the law that makes this debate even possible. If Lawyers were more diligent in their though process, then such loopholes would be closed already.

Civil Unions would be that 2+2=4 as you speak of. What we argue is that by insisting on the word Marriage, there's One added--God. That's where the dispute lies. You deny it and wonder why I can't just go along with you, and I keep reminding you that it is true...

Because homosexuality is still a deviant behaviour. It's a decision to what degree society wants to tolerate this deviant behaviour. I have no problem de-criminalizing it, but I don't want society telling them it's perfectly acceptable.

That I can't defend as desirable either. Gender roles are important in the home and in many personal aspects of human life. I'm not prepared to see them cast aside to achieve the illusion of progress.

I may have been, but some of it is just a little too personal to get into on a public forum. It's also widely off topic.

That's likely why there's so much defence of Gay Marriage, but it doesn't make it right. I understand that homosexuals have a tougher ride because their sexual practice cannot be made right, but I'm single in a church that takes the forbiddance of fornication seriously. You think I have it easy because I'm straight? Think again...

How about this: To what degree do we tolerate this deviant behaviour. All society requires a degree of conformity. How much leeway do we grant this minority?

This is by divine design.

God set the covenant form the beginning, with Adam and Eve. By using the recognized language--specifically the word Marriage, you are accepting His covenent. If you want to leave God out of it, use a different word. Just because the Government says something doesn't change what's been in place for millenia, and is outside their sphere of influnce.

No because the one male is reproducing with the sister (hopefully the male in question is not her brother).

 

Sorry Splunge, I was in a temper as it was!

 

Yes, much. I'd even agree with you. My dislike of your use of 'homophobe' is based on the facts that, one, it's an insulting perjoritive akin to fag or ***** (such words aren't welcome on these boards), and two, I have two people very close to me that are proffessionals in the mental health field. If you called someone a sociopath incorrectly, I'd correct you on that one, too. The common addoption of psychological terms for severe, debilitating disorders into insults in the common tongue really bugs me.

Do me a favor. Study the book of Daniel (and I don't just mean read it, I mean read about the history of it, the period it was written in, and what happened later). Study the book of Ezekiel (though that one starts really weird, it gets into more direct prophecies that have been fulfilled than Daniel does). A prophecy that says "Egypt will be devistated by war and, from then on, never be a world power again" is not vague. It can only be interpreted so many ways. Likewise, "Tyre and Sidon will be raised to the ground" only really lacks in time-frame. The prophecies given here are not vague at all. They're specific, often detailed, and they came true, sometimes a hundred or more years later. Give it a real, honest study instead of assuming it's a crock and you'll be surprised.

 

So things make sense because you say they do Gnarff? Come on, give me something more. As for the world, I didn't say anything about it being lawless or without rules. A society needs rules to function but they should be rules set down by rational people for rational reasons. Not rules set down by someone thousands of years who not only lived in a completely different society but who was also, by no real choice of his own, extremely ignorant and bigoted. I am tempted to start a pure religion thread but I do not think it would be very worthwhile, the religious people would get offended and I would feel like bashing my head to a brick wall. I would love to see you try to convince me that there not only is something greater than man with designs for us but that you (anyone with faith) have picked the right one. I can tell you, a universe without faith for a person who ponders existential questions is a cold meaningsless place and I would probably be a much happier person if I could shut down my rational thinking. I think that the main reason we have religion is that humans as a race have a need for something greater, we have a very hard time with facing reality preferring to build up elaborate comforting illusions around ourselves so we do not have to deal with the real world. Heck, I for one escape into fantasy literature, World of Warcraft and other computer games, some do it in drugs and some do it in religion. My only problem with religion is that it is so stupid that it bugs me, it almost offends me that people can buy such bull just as I am sure you almost feel offended when you see some poor suckers who have gotten sucked into some preposterous cult. And of course that these religions try to show their irrational based rules and ideas into other peoples throats and that everyone who don't believe as they do are to some extent lesser human beings cause they are going to fry or at least not enjoy the bliss that the chosen ones will.

NOG, stop posting while I am posting! It confuses me. Seriously if prophecies like that convinces you I find it strange that you don't spend all your money on pyramidschemes or something similar. Egypt will fall? Of course it will, every nation and power will fall it is just a matter of timescale. Nothing lasts forever the same goes for your other examples. I prophecy that the city of Washington DC will be abandoned that no man will walk the land! Am I a prophet if this comes true 10000 years from now? Oh and Egypt is probably just as regionally powerful now as it was during most of it's golden age(it never was a world power if you mean the world as it is now. The world was "smaller" then though so I am not going to argue that point). If that was the best you could find and I am afraid it was since it was what you posted and what I guess made the strongest opinion on you all you did was prove my point.

 

Gnarff -- once again, marriage comes from a latin word. It was used by the Romans and it meant to join in business -- it is not a word invented by any religion and no religion has any claim over the word. I could see this argument if the Hebrew word was used, but your (and others) continued assertation that "marriage" is a religious term is simply unsubstianted and ridiculous.

Use the Hebrew word -- or have the prophet come up with the "true" word for what we call marriage.

 

While it's debatable what is meant by "world power" the mameluk sultanate was quite powerful at its height rivalling most European powers.

 

Continuing on the point made above by T2 and BTA, I feel an example should clarify some things about words having different meanings. For instance, you could say that you marry two steel rods together by welding them together. I don't think that in this case you would truly feel it appropriate to call a divine covenant between those steel rods. Still, linguistically I am not making a mistake (I hope; english is not my native language, so there's a chance that I'm wrong). And even if I'm wrong in this*, it does not mean that you wouldn't get the point if I said those two rods were married to each other, which would mean that I was at least successful in conveying the idea to you, which is after all the point of language in general.

It has been mentioned in this thread several times that (christian) religions have used the word for marriage the longest, or that they have attached a certain value to the word which gives it a deeper meaning (which in turn makes their use of the word the only correct one). I'm no linguistics expert myself, but I seriously doubt that the word was invented by the same religious group that you are now member of, and that it didn't exist before the first notes and scribbles that are now the bible were even written down. Unless of course you believe that that genesis story is true and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.


* I could give an example in dutch which also has the dutch word for marriage with a meaninig not related to marrying as we're discussing it here, so even if I fail in this english example, my point still stands.

 

Woo, my turn! Well, John Boswell's turn. You should read his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality because he refutes (rationally, logically, historically, and successfully) literally every mention of the forbidding of homosexuality in the bible. I shall sum it up!

The most commonly used passages to condemn homosexuality are, according to John Boswell, author of Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Genesis 19, Judges 19:22ff, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27. In Genesis 19, two angels, who had gone to the city of Sodom to try and prevent its destruction, are taken in by Lot, a man of Sodom. The other inhabitants crowd around his house and demand that the angels be released from the house so “that [they] may know them,” (Gen. 19.5) a request that Lot refuses. Lot and his family are saved by the angels before the city is destroyed.(Gen. 19) The Church’s belief is that the city was punished for its sexual deviance, which was implied was homosexual by the male crowd’s desire to rape the male angels and lack of interest in Lot’s daughters. The offenses in Judges 19 are almost a carbon copy of Genesis 19 and have been interpreted the same way. (Boswell 93-96) Leviticus says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” (18.22) and “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (20.13) Romans also refers to homosexuality:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (1:26)


Boswell claims that in Genesis 19, Sodom is destroyed because of its inhospitality to visitors, which is reinforced by Jesus referencing the inhospitality of Sodom in Matt and the fact that only ten of the 943 uses of the verb “to know” are sexual. The sexual act of rape was only present as a way to prove the inhospitality of the Sodomites. (92-97) Leviticus’ reference to homosexuality, Boswell says, is not as virulent as the word ‘abomination’ implies: it is used multiple times to mark an action as something Jews consider “ritually unclean… like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation.”(100) Moreover, the traditions in Leviticus have not been passed down in Christianity; only Judaism has some semblance of Levitical rules left. (103) Romans is neither applicable to the situation; it is Paul’s condemnation of lust and prostitution, both homo- and heterosexual. (107-108)

(Also, a note, sorry if the explanations seem a bit short, this is something I had written in a research paper on how homosexuals reconcile their faith (which is a very interesting topic, by the way), so I go over the arguments very quickly)

Almost all of the gender roles currently in place are unfair to women. The gender roles desired by many religions want a 50's-esque idea of women in the kitchen, cleaning and cooking for the man, who makes all of the money. Other roles include how women should only have sex to reproduce, they should not enjoy it (that is the man's job), and they should listen to the man in every regard. I do not believe gender roles such as those are 'important in the home and in many personal aspects of human life.'

Deviant does not mean bad. Anything sexually that is not missionary-style is seen as deviant by society because it is not 'normal,' despite the fact that many people do it. Fetishes are deviant desires because they are not 'normal', despite being natural. I believe you should tolerate my deviant belief that decrees what type of person I am sexually attracted to (personally, it is gothic looking chicks ).

And conformity sucks man, I don't want to be a drone/clone/machine.

Viva la revolucion!