Gay Marriage?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But "liberals" love to take common sense and throw it out the window, as you did here by attacking Christianity. For that reason I referred to you as a liberal.

There has been a lot of bad things done over the years in the name of Islam. I can't argue that. But once again, I view Christianity and Islam in a similar view. They are both religions based on a book written by humans many many moons ago and while I've never read the Quran (and have no desire to), I don't agree with either religion. I still laugh that this makes me a liberal. I thought that it would make me something more on the line as agnostic. But call me a liberal if you please if it makes you feel better (you obviously don't like me and I couldn't care about that). You're just judging me as I'm sure you judge everyone else different from yourself. And that is the message from this thread. Try not to judge people who are different from yourself. It just leads to intolerance and hatred.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron, where does it say that the Christian religion is based on slavishly following every single soemtimes mutually contradictory rule in the Bible?

Jesus says that the only way to his Father is through him. The Bible lays out the "rules". If you don't want to follow the "rules" (And I don't) then don't try to change the rules and still claim to be following them.

Yes, anyone can create a religion, and have it recognized.

So I could create a religion based on worship of BillVon. We could call it BillVonian, and call ourselves BillVonians. Our rules could come from his posts here on DZ.com.

Some of the basic tenants could be:
1. Paying attention to the environment and not trying to hurt it.
2. Being nice to people, and trying to promote equality.
3. Never believing Republicans.
4. Not trying to progress faster than your skills will allow.

Our goal could be to become "Mods" or "green". And our punishment could be "Banned".

So here we have this cool new religion.

Now I could not be a member of that religion since I am a Republican....No matter how much I may claim to be a BillVonian, I could NOT be if I trusted Republicans and drove a Hummer while throwing Big Mac wrappers out the window while doing 100 MPH and trying to hit little old ladies as they cross the street.

Call it what you want, but if my actions are against the tenants of the religion....I clearly am NOT that religion.

I could create my own version of the religion where all those things are allowed.....But it does not mean I am any closer to "Mod" (You knew that was coming right?) according to the very tenants of the religion.

In the same token you can't be something the Bible clearly speaks out against and still claim to be Christian.

Some say "The Bible changes with time"...No it does not. The RELIGIONS change. Also the basic rules have not really changed. God says if you murder you have sinned....Well the NT says you can ask for forgiveness and still be saved. Well that does not mean you can still kill. You have to repent and not do it again.

So for homosexuality you could HAVE been gay, repent and be saved, but you can't STILL be homosexual and claim to be a good Christian.

Also some of the 'punishments' have been removed. The Bible still looks down on adultry, but they don't stone you for it anymore...That does not mean that adultry is now OK.

So, any religion that panders to the popular culture CANNOT be true to the Bible. And since the Bible is the source of the 'word' then any religion that alters or ignores the 'word' is not really that religion. It may be recognized by a government, or it may be popular...But it is not true.

For the record this is the major reason I am not religious....I hate it when people claim to be Christian then steal, sleep around...basicly do the very things the Bible says is wrong. I have gone out witnessing to people, then gone back gotten drunk and had sex with one of my youth group....While fun, its kinda hypocritical to claim to be doing gods work and then fucking in the church.

Hypocrites.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

HOWEVER, what damn difference does it make WHO someone loves?

He answered that. He does not support gay marriage and as a business owner if homosexual marriage is allowed he can either:

1. Be forced to give partner benefits to homosexual companies against his wishes.

2. Cut benefits to all spouses.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

But "liberals" love to take common sense and throw it out the window, as you did here by attacking Christianity. For that reason I referred to you as a liberal.

There has been a lot of bad things done over the years in the name of Islam. I can't argue that. But once again, I view Christianity and Islam in a similar view. They are both religions based on a book written by humans many many moons ago and while I've never read the Quran (and have no desire to), I don't agree with either religion. I still laugh that this makes me a liberal. I thought that it would make me something more on the line as agnostic. But call me a liberal if you please if it makes you feel better (you obviously don't like me and I couldn't care about that). You're just judging me as I'm sure you judge everyone else different from yourself. And that is the message from this thread. Try not to judge people who are different from yourself. It just leads to intolerance and hatred.

I do not dislike you or like you. I have neutral feelings toward you. If anybody asks how I define myself the true answer would be agnostic as well. But I did grow up raised Catholic and know what the religion stands for. I know it does not have a clean slate of perfection in its history. But it has been historically the most powerful religion and the earth as whole has benifitted from that. I see a lot of inaccuracies in the bible which tell me that its not divine, and as you said it was written by man after all.
Still I think man kind is generally not good and therefore it has benifitted humanity because it has many good teachings that work well, as some people will only act properly for the fear of god.
Bill and Narcimund talk about activists judges being the one who allowed interacial marriages against the majority but that is not accurate. The truth is that black violence through riots has instilled fear into many, causing people to rethink their positions. Its kind of like all the stupid Catholic jokes that are told daily. Nobody expects Catholic to do anything about it so they figure they can get away with it. Muslims on the other hand showed how deadly they could be in the U.S. on 9/11 and the liberals are ready with their policies of appeasment in response. Now suddenly its not politically correct to joke about their religion. This same principal is the reason why gay activists like Narcimund are the ones getting special rights for homosexuals. If you ask me its sickening that so many people pander to them. I say do what is right. Don't do what that guy screaming the loudest or posing the most danger is asking for. That simply sets a bad precidence.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[bodypilot90 0]

could not have said it better!

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

Quote

HOWEVER, what damn difference does it make WHO someone loves?

He answered that. He does not support gay marriage and as a business owner if homosexual marriage is allowed he can either:

1. Be forced to give partner benefits to homosexual companies against his wishes.
2. Cut benefits to all spouses.

Then maybe that's not the answer I was looking for.

He said "as a taxpayer and as a small business owner i do not want to give them health benefits because of a farce mariage." When I read "farce marriage" I immediately thought of people who marry just to get the insurance benefits or a green card or are claiming "common law", not 2 people getting married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together (gay or not). If it is a legal marriage and he (or anyone) offers benefits to their employees and the employee's spouses, then it should be offered or denied to ALL employees, not just the gay ones. If he doesn't want to offer benefits to homosexual couples, don't, but you can't pick and choose who to benefit.

Ron, you know how I feel about you. We are friends and will always be friends, no matter how much we disagree with each other, and I do disagree with you on this. YOu keep quoting and talking about religion, but that's not at all where I wanted this thread to go. I'm very impressed with your knowledge of the religions. I've learned a lot by reading your posts here and in other threads.

But, this is not about religion to me. It's about treating one group of people one way and another group another way. Whether they are gay, black, poor, whatever. It's just wrong.

[Ron 10]

Quote

He said "as a taxpayer and as a small business owner i do not want to give them health benefits because of a farce mariage." When I read "farce marriage" I immediately thought of people who marry just to get the insurance benefits or a green card or are claiming "common law", not 2 people getting married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together (gay or not).

OK, but as a small business owner does he have the right to not pay for a spouse's health care that he does not approve of the union? Answer, No.

If a guy has a company and he thinks interracial marriages are wrong...If he has an employee that is married to someone of another race he has only two choices, Pay for the spouse, or stop paying for ALL spouses. Same whith gay marriage.

So, even if he does not care what two people do alone in the back room...He still has a dog in this fight.

Quote

Ron, you know how I feel about you. We are friends and will always be friends, no matter how much we disagree with each other, and I do disagree with you on this

Ditto on the feelings...But I think you assume I am opposed to it. To be honest I just can't be bothered to care, unless they make me choose. The only reason I am here is because its fun to talk about stuff. I don't protest "gay day" in Orlando. I don't ram my car into cars that have gay pride stickers....Hell I have gay friends. I have stated several times int he past I don't have aproblem with "Civil Unions", but that its not a marriage cause marriage is religion.

I have also said I think the Gov should stop giving breaks to married couples.

I DO however see how if homosexual relationships become legal, that people will be forced to make hard choices. I'm not sure the other side can see that, or if they can see it they might be the ones who think companies should pay for everything anyway, or support federal medical care.

But for a person who is involved in business I can see how people don't want to pay for benefits for a relationship they don't aprove of. Thats forcing a situation on them.

Quote

YOu keep quoting and talking about religion

Cause marriage is religion....The State should not bother getting involved. Also some on here mentioned gays are accepted by some religions...And I just love pointing out how they really can't be if the religion uses the Bible as a base. I'm in no way a good Christian...so I don't bother claiming to be one.

Quote

But, this is not about religion to me. It's about treating one group of people one way and another group another way. Whether they are gay, black, poor, whatever. It's just wrong.

I have said before I support gays to have the same rights, but its not a "marriage".

To be honest I'm not sure about addoption, but the majority of the issues I agree that gays should have. I think property transfer, visitation in a hospital...Ect are all vaild and should be given....It's still not a marriage.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpergirl 0]

I never said, nor did I think, you are opposed to it. I truly appreciate your thoughts and views on the whole thing.

I do think marriage is religious, but not religion. That brings up another question for me though. If marriage is religious, what about those that are not married in a church? What about the ones who go to the JP at the courthouse or are married by a notary? Are those marriages not "counted" because they aren't done in a church and aren't religious? How are those marraiges any different than a gay couple going to the courthouse?

• Quote

[craichead 0]

Quote

If marriage is religious, what about those that are not married in a church? What about the ones who go to the JP at the courthouse or are married by a notary? Are those marriages not "counted" because they aren't done in a church and aren't religious?

I've always wondered this myself... AndyMan and I had a civil ceremony with a justice of the peace. We're not religious in the slightest bit. I guess we're not really married--we're civilly united. Silly semantics!

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

Quote

If marriage is religious, what about those that are not married in a church? What about the ones who go to the JP at the courthouse or are married by a notary? Are those marriages not "counted" because they aren't done in a church and aren't religious?

I've always wondered this myself... AndyMan and I had a civil ceremony with a justice of the peace. We're not religious in the slightest bit. I guess we're not really married--we're civilly united. Silly semantics!

Well, that was my point. I've been married 3 times. (I know... WTF? ) The first time was with a preacher. Second was with a notary. Third was with a JP. Does that mean the last 2 weren't "real?" If that's the case, I'd lke that!

[billvon 3,119]

>If marriage is religious, what about those that are not married in a church?

Marriage isn't religious or civil. It's personal. It's a decision between two people, not a decision of a priest or judge. The government has a role in setting up certain legal protections (like the ability to inherit, or child custody) and religion has a role in making people feel good about their marriage and getting the support of a local community of like-minded people. But in the end, the only two people whose opinions matter on whether they are married or not are the two people who are married.

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

>If marriage is religious, what about those that are not married in a church?

Marriage isn't religious or civil. It's personal. It's a decision between two people, not a decision of a priest or judge. The government has a role in setting up certain legal protections (like the ability to inherit, or child custody) and religion has a role in making people feel good about their marriage and getting the support of a local community of like-minded people. But in the end, the only two people whose opinions matter on whether they are married or not are the two people who are married.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

The rules of the church can be changed - it just needs a meeting like that in Nicen or Vatican II. Or better yet get the Pope to declare infalibility which is defined as the word of God being spoken thru the Pope. The Church has built in plenty of loopholes to change things as they feel fit.

So is the Pope God? If not, I don't see how he can change WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

If the Bible says murdering your Father is bad. Then no amount of the Pope saying its OK is going to change that the BIBLE says its bad..

There fore if the Pope says its OK then the Church is no longer following the BIBLE, and threfore is not longer CHRISTIAN.

What really runs the Church these days is called Canon Law. The Church does not follow everything the bible says - it pays people to interpret it to come up with the governing laws. Why doesn't the Church follow the bible? IF it did you would see people being stoned to death, people having to cut off body parts that even thought of a sin, etc. The Church's interpretation of the bible has changed multiple times in history. Look at Vatican II - it was a major paradigm shift in how the Church did things.

Plus, which version should they use? In what language? If you ever were to do a side by side comparision of bibles you would see they are not all the same...and the interpretations that come from this are many. What you need to realize is that the bible is not static and every few years a new version comes out (there was even a politically correct version).

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I don't get why you are on the religious aspect of this. I don't see anyone here pushing to have the Catholic Church or any other religion accept gay marriage or have it happen in their buildings.

The issue here is with the gov't and civil unions, not bible study. Go to any college theology class and you will hear your arguments pounded out on a daily basis (trust me on this).

There are plenty of people in this country that are not in a religion, did not have any minister bless their union and our country legally recognizes them as married. THIS is what is being asked for, THIS is what is being discriminated against. To say that these people are not "married" due to the lack of religion involved would have one hell of an impact on tens of thousands of families.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[bodypilot90 0]

so if M. jackson decides to marry a dog, lets say a poodle, then I should have to pay the vet bills? na a duck is still a duck and not a eagle. call it anything but a mariage, ok.

[billvon 3,119]

>so if M. jackson decides to marry a dog, lets say a poodle, then I
>should have to pay the vet bills?

No. A poodle is not a person.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The bible was used as a reason that blacks should not marry whites. From a judge who defended the Virginia law against interracial marriage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

We changed that one, even if the Bible wanted us to keep it.

There’s obviously no basis in the Bible for what that judge suggested concerning interracial marriage .

However, the Bible is very clear with reference to homosexuality .

Your comparison is off base.

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

I don't get why you are on the religious aspect of this. I don't see anyone here pushing to have the Catholic Church or any other religion accept gay marriage or have it happen in their buildings.

The issue here is with the gov't and civil unions, not bible study. Go to any college theology class and you will hear your arguments pounded out on a daily basis (trust me on this).

There are plenty of people in this country that are not in a religion, did not have any minister bless their union and our country legally recognizes them as married. THIS is what is being asked for, THIS is what is being discriminated against. To say that these people are not "married" due to the lack of religion involved would have one hell of an impact on tens of thousands of families.

That's exactly my point. I didn't ask my questions looking for religious arguments against it. You're right, "The issue here is with the gov't and civil unions."

[billvon 3,119]

>There’s obviously no basis in the Bible for what that judge
>suggested concerning interracial marriage . . .

Deut 7:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

The Hittites were Indian and the Amorites were Norse. And of course they list seven other nations, all of whom followers of the LORD are forbidden to marry.

Now, your 2005 perspective is that the Bible allows marriages between _any_ two races despite that passage. I agree.

There is no passage in the Bible that forbids gay marriage. It says that gays should be killed, but it does not say they cannot marry. Future generations will look back on our contention that the bible says gays can't marry the same way we look back at that judge.

[n23x 0]

Your little link there regarding Homosexuality also has this to say about Halloween:

Quote

One very evil tradition is the celebration of Halloween. No Christian should partake in the activities of this holiday, nor should they allow their children to do so.

Do you agree with all the stances found on that webpage? Or just the ones that suit your motive?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Silly semantics!

Exactly! I think that most people think of the social acceptance that allowing the term "Marriage" rather than 'civil union' applies. This is the touchy feely side of the coin and the only side addressed in the original post. It drives all or nothing positions and delays any real solution.

There is also the tangible benefits that government has given civil unions and called incorrectly under the broader (and yes, Bill) RELIGIOUS term of 'marriage'. This is the practical application side of the coin. Proponents tends to dismiss discussions on this side and try to apply unfair social pressure with the first part - I don't know why, addressing this specifically is the ONLY path to success of any kind.

The attack is exactly backwards like all major discussions today. It's about whatever benefits would apply. Social acceptance cannot be legislated no matter how much groups would like it to be - even though that was the only side of this two sided coin that the original post was trying to address - the whole touchy feely part.

Still best to get out of it completely and be specific on which benefits are allowed for which situation if we really HAVE to be involved in encouraging certain behavior. (such as a heterosexual couple raising children).

I don't think we have to be involved. We are not some big social experiment for the government to play with.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Deut 7:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

The Hittites were Indian and the Amorites were Norse. And of course they list seven other nations, all of whom followers of the LORD are forbidden to marry.

Now, your 2005 perspective is that the Bible allows marriages between _any_ two races despite that passage. I agree.

There is no passage in the Bible that forbids gay marriage. It says that gays should be killed, but it does not say they cannot marry. Future generations will look back on our contention that the bible says gays can't marry the same way we look back at that judge.

“The Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. It does, however, forbid a Christian from marrying an unbeliever.”

It’s all in the context Bill.

Also, just because the Bible doesn’t mention specifically “gay marriage” does not mean that it doesn’t condemn it. If it clearly condemns the homosexual lifestyle, a reasonable person might also conclude that formalizing that abominable union might also be “against the rules.” With reference to “gays being killed” in the Bible, those laws were the laws of the Nation of Israel and not “God’s law.” Along the same lines as all the other laws you frequently reference (e.g. can’t eat shellfish, etc.) When death is referenced with “God’s law”, it is speaking of spiritual death. Your physical presence here is not important when compared to your eternal soul.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Marriage isn't religious or civil. It's personal. It's a decision between two people, not a decision of a priest or judge. The government has a role in setting up certain legal protections (like the ability to inherit, or child custody) and religion has a role in making people feel good about their marriage and getting the support of a local community of like-minded people. But in the end, the only two people whose opinions matter on whether they are married or not are the two people who are married.

If true, then why are gays trying to push to be "legal"?

I mean if only matters to them and all.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Your little link there regarding Homosexuality also has this to say about Halloween:

Quote

One very evil tradition is the celebration of Halloween. No Christian should partake in the activities of this holiday, nor should they allow their children to do so.

Do you agree with all the stances found on that webpage? Or just the ones that suit your motive?

.jim

Stay on topic dude. I wasn't aware that my links were "little." Is there a markup tool I should be using to make mine as big as everybody elses?

[billvon 3,119]

>then why are gays trying to push to be "legal"?

Because the government has a role in setting up certain legal protections (like the ability to inherit, or child custody.) If they did that - allowed the same legal protections to any two people regardless of race or sex - as far as I'm concerned they're done.