| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2007 02:49:28 PM · #626 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop?
Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well? |
Do you really know anyone who teaches their children that those books are the Gospel Truth -- the inspired word of God, with precepts to be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation? |
Nope. And I don't teach my children that the precepts of the Bible must be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation, either.
I teach them that the Bible is an excellent resource for learning valuable life lessons. I also teach them that we are all sinners, and we are all, by our own actions, guilty of sinning against God, the penalty for which is eternal damnation ( separation from God ). But that God loved us so much that He, in Christ, took upon Himself the penalty for our sin so that we don't have to suffer that eternal damnation - IF we are willing to admit our need for, and accept that gift of salvation.
That, in a nutshell, is the gospel ( good news ). |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 02:52:12 PM · #627 |
i've been following this thread for 3+ years. i'm really sick of this being treated like a religious issue. it's not. it's a civil rights issue.
IF i want to get married, i should be able to. and IF i were to do it in a church (which i wouldn't) i would have sense enough NOT to do it in a church that didn't want me there. why the hell would i want to support them?
you live your life and leave mine the hell alone.
thank you. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 02:54:20 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i've been following this thread for 3+ years. i'm really sick of this being treated like a religious issue. it's not. it's a civil rights issue.
IF i want to get married, i should be able to. and IF i were to do it in a church (which i wouldn't) i would have sense enough NOT to do it in a church that didn't want me there. why the hell would i want to support them?
you live your life and leave mine the hell alone.
thank you. |
Amen. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:11:52 PM · #629 |
bravo, your muck-i-ness!!!
sorry man - its the hat your wearing! lol (avatar)
::ahem:: I concur with Mr Pond - er - Elliot... you people know what I mean! |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:31:14 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, us "straights" have already lost the meaning of the word gay, now we are in danger of loosing the meaning of marriage too. Where will it end? |
FWIW, you might want to read an Etymology of the word gay before making such false assumptions that the 17th century meaning of the word gay was lost to homosexuals. As early as the late 17th century the meaning of the word leaned more toward heterosexual promiscuity.
And for what I can tell, the meaning of marriage was lost a LONG time before "gays" began lobbying for marriage rights. You can also blame us "straights" for that.
If you're gonna make assumptions, please base them on a bit of fact. |
Well. this is taken from the passage you directed me to...
".......The primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century—though the change evolved from earlier usages. It derives via the Old French gai, probably from a Germanic source.[1] The word originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature........."
"If you're gonna make" statements,"please base them on a bit of fact."
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 15:32:02. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:31:52 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i've been following this thread for 3+ years. i'm really sick of this being treated like a religious issue. it's not. it's a civil rights issue.
IF i want to get married, i should be able to. and IF i were to do it in a church (which i wouldn't) i would have sense enough NOT to do it in a church that didn't want me there. why the hell would i want to support them?
you live your life and leave mine the hell alone.
thank you. |
For now, it is a religious issue, and will likely continue to be a religious issue until gays, lesbians, et. al., decide, as a group, that civil unions will meet their requirements and stop trying to co-opt the terms "marriage" and "married" which are held so dear by the religious majority. Somehow, I don't see that happening, because the terms "marriage" and "married" convey a much greater connotation of social and moral acceptance than do "joined" and "partnered". And it *appears* that it's the connotation is what is being sought more earnestly, not the legal issues. If it were really just legal rights that they wanted, they could have had them years ago, by petitioning, on a state by state basis, for enactment of civil union legislation ( which the majority of Americans support ).
Religious people, in general, do not hate homosexuals ( the Bible, after all, says that one should love one's neighbor ) - but they do love their institutions ( in some denominations marriage is a sacrament ), and they tend to guard them dearly.
If legal rights were the desired result, then the gay community has been dealt a real disservice by those who advised y'all to push for marriage instead of for civil unions. And following that advice has resulted in a backlash leading to a lot of anti-gay-marriage legislation. I hope that y'all can somehow recover from it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:36:55 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
"If you're gonna make" statements,"please base them on a bit of fact." |
Odd that YOU chose to ignore the majority of it...
"The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behavior that were perceived as immoral."
I doubt you are old enough to have lived prior to the early to mid 17th century when the word had no sexual connotations.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 15:40:20.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:43:47 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For now, it is a religious issue, and will likely continue to be a religious issue until gays, lesbians, et. al., decide, as a group, that civil unions will meet their requirements and stop trying to co-opt the terms "marriage" and "married" which are held so dear by the religious majority. |
_i_ never started using the "term" marriage outside of a religious context. you can thank governments that have put in place legislation that uses the term "marriage" for doing so. the way you state it, "marriage" is a wholly religious state removed from government oversight and that's just a complete fallacy in this day and age.
i don't care what it's called -- civil rights, partnership, gettin' it on, whatever -- but until "civil union" and "marriage" are equal in the eyes of the law, "civil union" doesn't cut it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:44:36 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So I assume that your answer is no - you can't ( or won't ) provide any evidence to support your charge. |
Again, I needn't (though I could) cite instances of biblical intolerance chapter and verse. We are already making the readers weary with all this off-topic bible talk. And your finesse at diverging the conversation into areas where you hope to trap the arguer in a morass of his own words is commendable, but will get you nowhere.
Originally posted by RonB:
So just what IS it about the Bible that causes you so much consternation? |
Hm, despite your best efforts, I think I've told that it doesn't cause me any consternation. However, it's already been pointed out by me and others that there is an opinion that the bible is not a de facto "good book". Some think that using its chamber-of-horrors contents to dictate people's actions, while presenting it as God's mouthpiece, is bad for people, especially impressionable people. Aesop and Grimm and the rest make no such claims. And it's really silly to have to point that out. Your analogy is just plain trite, and does nothing to further your argument. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:44:54 PM · #635 |
and another thing i don't understand is why people who don't enter challenges, don't vote on challenges, and don't participate in any forum threads outside of "Rant" are here in the first place anyway.
aren't there about a brazillion better places on the web to have these arguments than a photography site? |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:46:37 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i don't care what it's called -- civil rights, partnership, gettin' it on, whatever -- but until "civil union" and "marriage" are equal in the eyes of the law, "civil union" doesn't cut it. |
I'd like to add to that... a nation that has systematically removed religion from state (ie banning prayer in schools) has no right to pick and chose when to use religion as an "excuse".
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:47:22 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by muckpond:
i don't care what it's called -- civil rights, partnership, gettin' it on, whatever -- but until "civil union" and "marriage" are equal in the eyes of the law, "civil union" doesn't cut it. |
I'd like to add to that... a nation that has systematically removed religion from state (ie banning prayer in schools) has no right to pick and chose when to use religion as an "excuse". |
"amen."
lololololololol. jeez that was funny. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:54:36 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... Religious people, in general, do not hate homosexuals ( the Bible, after all, says that one should love one's neighbor ) - but they do love their institutions ( in some denominations marriage is a sacrament ), and they tend to guard them dearly. ... |
Amen. Marriage is for a man and woman, and should ALWAYS remain that way. Thank goodness most states have the backbone to keep it that way legally as well. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:57:20 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For now, it is a religious issue, and will likely continue to be a religious issue until gays, lesbians, et. al., decide, as a group, that civil unions will meet their requirements and stop trying to co-opt the terms "marriage" and "married" which are held so dear by the religious majority. |
I am happy to report that in Canada, where I live, this "religious majority" doesn't exist. Marriage was redefined in law in the summer of 2005 as a union between two persons, "legalizing" gay marriage. Of the myriad polls taken on the issue prior to this, showing that the country was deeply split though leaning in favour of legalizing gay marriage, the latest poll shows that 59% of Canadians favour the law, and 33% oppose it. Irrespective of this, people understand that minority rights are not doled out by majority opinion, but by constitutional guarantees. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 03:58:57 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by RonB:
... Religious people, in general, do not hate homosexuals ( the Bible, after all, says that one should love one's neighbor ) - but they do love their institutions ( in some denominations marriage is a sacrament ), and they tend to guard them dearly. ... |
Amen. Marriage is for a man and woman, and should ALWAYS remain that way. Thank goodness most states have the backbone to keep it that way legally as well. |
Many of those same denominations also teach that a woman's place is in the home, yet the states don't make it illegal for married women to work... hmmm
going back to picking and choosing...
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
a nation that has systematically removed religion from state (ie banning prayer in schools) has no right to pick and chose when to use religion as an "excuse". |
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 16:00:55.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:01:08 PM · #641 |
For those opposed, how is that a marriage that does not fit your particular definition, be it secular or otherwise, hurts you personally? This is a serious question, one to which I do not want cited references, merely your personal response.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 16:01:48. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:04:14 PM · #642 |
How many gay couples do you know that can procreate and have a family? Without the outside assistance of the opposite sex or science...
Marriage is for a man and woman - period. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:05:22 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
How many gay couples do you know that can procreate and have a family? Without the outside assistance of the opposite sex or science... |
how many straight couples do you know that don't have any kids?
edited to add:
i know at least 4 gay couples that have adopted children that straight people didn't want or couldn't deal with. are you telling me those aren't families? that's bullshit.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 16:06:10. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:06:26 PM · #644 |
I'll throw this in for a twist (if it hasn't been done before)
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.
Read Here
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:06:38 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
How many gay couples do you know that can procreate and have a family? Without the outside assistance of the opposite sex or science...
Marriage is for a man and woman - period. |
How many "Christian" heterosexual couples have used science to conceive?
I only ask, because your argument would state that artificial means of conception should be banned whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 16:10:33.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:09:21 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i know at least 4 gay couples that have adopted children that straight people didn't want or couldn't deal with. are you telling me those aren't families? that's bullshit. |
Certainly not normal ones... |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:11:15 PM · #647 |
Not what I'm looking for. If you believe a man and a women marry to have children, then my sister and her husband should have their marriage annuled. She is physically incapable of having a child.
What I'm looking for is why those of you opposed feel it personally affects YOU if two men or two women chose to marry. And if the whole purpose of life is procreation, I should be put to death, by the way. I have failed. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:11:25 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i know at least 4 gay couples that have adopted children that straight people didn't want or couldn't deal with. are you telling me those aren't families? that's bullshit. |
Certainly not normal ones... |
If you're worried about same sex parent influence on kids, ask if any single parent familes are normal.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:13:19 PM · #649 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
How many gay couples do you know that can procreate and have a family? Without the outside assistance of the opposite sex or science...
Marriage is for a man and woman - period. |
How many "Christian" heterosexual couples have used science to conceive? |
I'm sure it's many, thousands and thousands perhaps. To make it happen takes two sexes however. Then the kids grow up and have a Mom and Dad, maybe a stepdad or stepmom - but still both sides of the coin if you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 04:14:26 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I should be put to death, by the way. I have failed.
|
As far as I know... I have too :-)
|
|
