| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2009 04:41:50 PM · #1926 |
| For what it's worth, it seems that the opposite, i.e. a church "marriage/blessing" without a civil "marriage/union", is an option being chosen more often by heterosexuals, as well. Ref: here |
|
|
|
02/22/2009 10:17:27 PM · #1927 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
This is also the same doctrines that say that women can't be priests because Jesus was a man, based on Judaic "laws" in Biblical times where women were thought "unclean" and therefore, unable to enter Temple/Synagogue with men. :)
|
Pretty much. Women have a higher role to play. After all, Mary was the mother of God you know.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
And, let's not forget that it advocates no birth control |
Ya, that too. We believe the beautiful act of sex is for procreation and union. Anything that comes between that act isn't allowed. Of course, only Catholics believe that.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
on top of its anti-abortion stance |
Allow someone to kill another person? Sorry, we're against that too. This would include euthanasia. "Sorry grandpa, you're costing us too much, gotta pull the plug."
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
and they wonder why congregations are getting smaller and they're having problems getting priests into the priesthood. Yet, how many scandals have involved priests and pedophilia? |
Pedophilia is no joking matter. Priests are people too, some people are bad. I'm sure there's a such thing as a bad priest.
I read an article yesterday about Russia and how the communist government destroyed the family. They were also the first government to allow for the killing of people through abortion. Their population is now at a -400,000 per year. There's also China with it's infanticide. Now I hear governments in Europe are concerned about their birth rates.
As for the previous post on more and more people going to unions than being married. That's the way to do it. Civil unions should be recognized by the State. Save marriage for us religious people. |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 01:15:49 PM · #1928 |
Interesting that after the ratchet has apparently clicked, the stance seems to have gone from "save marriage for one man and one woman" to "save marriage for religious people".
How easily the goal posts shift! Shall we divorce all the straight atheists, next?
Message edited by author 2009-02-23 13:21:37. |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 01:31:32 PM · #1929 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Pedophilia is no joking matter. Priests are people too, some people are bad. I'm sure there's a such thing as a bad priest. |
So stipulated.
The serious problems arise when things happen like the Archdiocese covers up the incidents, and/or denies them, thereby condoning, and allowing the behavior to continue.
This was a BIG issue here in Pennsylvania that not too long ago was revealed and it pretty much made the church look like a hideout for pedophiles.
This site is devoted strictly to priest sex abuse: Abuse Advocate
|
|
|
|
02/23/2009 01:33:27 PM · #1930 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Interesting that after the ratchet has apparently clicked, the stance seems to have gone from "save marriage for one man and one woman" to "save marriage for religious people". |
That's not going to fly with us UUs......we're already marrying gays!
Funniest damn thing.......they look, and act, just like real people it seems!
Tricky devils!.......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2009 10:44:57 PM · #1931 |
| Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 06:59:02 AM · #1932 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
... and my question to you in this regard would be: "What possible impact could these marriages have on you?"
Ray |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 07:11:05 AM · #1933 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
Why?
Is there some LEGITIMATE reason that two people who love each other, and are committed to entering a relationship for life, shouldn't have the blessing of THEIR friends, family, church, and state?
I fail to see how anyone's relationship becomes the concern of anyone else.
Isn't that what fundamental freedom and individual rights are all about?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 11:17:15 AM · #1934 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
Why? |
I would guess that the reasons are a combination in some proportion of homophobia, religious indignation and resistance to change. I am not sure what other reasons there are.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 12:25:36 PM · #1935 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
A couple Qs, since you left out a ton of information.
Do you think a committed (13 years, shared mortgage, love each other to bits) homosexual partnership like the one I am in (technically I'm married, but for the purposes of this question you don't have to take that into consideration) deserves the same legal protections as a heterosexual marriage?
If so, can you describe why you think that a solution other than marriage is more efficient at providing those protections?
If not, why do you think I shouldn't have the same legal rights, such as hospital visitation and inheritance? |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 10:18:45 PM · #1936 |
I started watching Bill Maher's movie on Religion last night. He was talking to a guy who "WAS GAY" (choke) and ended up in a heterosexual marriage (for those who haven't seen the movie yet) to a "former lesbian". His take on things was that there was no such thing as being Gay. According to him, it was a "choice".
Now, I don't know about anyone else but, I think most would agree with me when I say that I couldn't CHOOSE to become Gay if I tried. I am heterosexual and therefore, that is just not a "choice" for me. Given that fact that everyone who is against homosexuality is heterosexual and can't fathom the idea of them ever choosing to be homosexual, I can't imagine someone with any type of a working mind whatsoever, being able to say that Gay's have anymore of a choice in that fact than a heterosexual does.
Given that, how is it that it's any choice at all what either a heterosexual or a homosexual feels? And, WHY would someone choose to be Gay when there is so much bashing and inequality going on? So, when someone pipes up and says something like, "I believe relationships should be only between a man and a woman", one has to ask the question of what happens to those in this world who are Gay by birth through genetics or whatever causes us all to have our sexual preferences? What are they supposed to do? There is no more of a choice for them than there is for any heterosexuals so, are they not supposed to "love"? Are they not supposed to have the same rights? Are they not humanbeings with the same needs as any heterosexual on this planet?
I had a doctor (now retired) who was black. He married a white woman. Their union was not accepted. Blacks and whites shouldn't marry. He expected Society to change its view about that issue (and, rightfully so) but, he still, with all of his medical knowledge, was against Gay Marriages. His reasoning? "Marriage is for the purpose of creation and once you give Gays the same rights, children will be involved by adoption or birth into the relationship in the case of Lesbians." I asked him why this would be a problem? Unbelievably, he answered that it might set up a "nurture situation" where the children would become Gay as well. That about blew me off of my chair! We went over the idea of it not being a choice and he agreed with that but, ironically, he couldn't see it that if it wasn't a choice for anyone in being heterosexual or homosexual, how could any child be "swayed" towards being Gay if they were born heterosexual? And, even were that to be a possibility, why would that be so horrible, other than because of people with thinking like his?! That was my last visit to him. I changed doctors after that.
So, other than taking some book of mythology (another rant thread needed for that one!) at face value, what real logic is there in saying that a union should only be between a man and a woman? I still don't get that! I'm sure that most of us in this thread don't get it! :( |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 10:22:44 PM · #1937 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Usually I stay out of rant so I missed this thread, but I have to say I firmly believe marriage should remain a legal union between one man and one woman. Male/male or Female/female relationships do not qualify, nor should they be recognized as a "marriage". |
Why?
Is there some LEGITIMATE reason that two people who love each other, and are committed to entering a relationship for life, shouldn't have the blessing of THEIR friends, family, church, and state?
I fail to see how anyone's relationship becomes the concern of anyone else.
Isn't that what fundamental freedom and individual rights are all about? |
Amen to that! LOL |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 10:43:37 PM · #1938 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
This is also the same doctrines that say that women can't be priests because Jesus was a man, based on Judaic "laws" in Biblical times where women were thought "unclean" and therefore, unable to enter Temple/Synagogue with men. :)
|
Pretty much. Women have a higher role to play. After all, Mary was the mother of God you know.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
And, let's not forget that it advocates no birth control |
Ya, that too. We believe the beautiful act of sex is for procreation and union. Anything that comes between that act isn't allowed. Of course, only Catholics believe that.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
on top of its anti-abortion stance |
Allow someone to kill another person? Sorry, we're against that too. This would include euthanasia. "Sorry grandpa, you're costing us too much, gotta pull the plug."
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
and they wonder why congregations are getting smaller and they're having problems getting priests into the priesthood. Yet, how many scandals have involved priests and pedophilia? |
Pedophilia is no joking matter. Priests are people too, some people are bad. I'm sure there's a such thing as a bad priest.
I read an article yesterday about Russia and how the communist government destroyed the family. They were also the first government to allow for the killing of people through abortion. Their population is now at a -400,000 per year. There's also China with it's infanticide. Now I hear governments in Europe are concerned about their birth rates.
As for the previous post on more and more people going to unions than being married. That's the way to do it. Civil unions should be recognized by the State. Save marriage for us religious people. |
Let me ask here....
So, Mary's alleged role as "The Mother of God" was important but, yet, women in the Catholic Church are not allowed to hold the highest office of being Priest and especially, of being Pope? (I WAS Catholic at one time and have since denounced it for these very reasons of hypocracy) That's akin to saying that women's only role is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant! They have no use in the workforce and men rule the world and all in it!
As for the act of sex only being for procreation, or unions only being sanctified for the purposes of procreation then, any act of sex within a marriage should be for the purposes of procreation. Any act of sex outside of that, even within a marriage should be regarded as "wrong"?!
The abortion issue is an entire debate, in and of itself in deciding when a life is a life. Some will agree it's at conception and only a few cells old, others will disagree and say that it's only when that fetus is born into the world and able to live on its own, separate from the mother. I'm not going to debate that one. But, it goes back to the first point and that is that if one can't use birth control and there's no abortion option, then one had better be willing to abstain because the population of the world would be in crisis state, such as in China and other countries in the world where the population has gotten so large that it can't support it. Thank the heavens everyone doesn't follow those beliefs or this planet would die off due to over-population!
As for pedophilia, of course that's no joking matter! That was my point.
Thankfully, there are other religions besides the Catholic religion that will marry all who love one another and will take an oath before God to love one another. |
|
|
|
03/21/2009 04:34:05 PM · #1939 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
This is also the same doctrines that say that women can't be priests because Jesus was a man, based on Judaic "laws" in Biblical times where women were thought "unclean" and therefore, unable to enter Temple/Synagogue with men. :)
|
Pretty much. Women have a higher role to play. After all, Mary was the mother of God you know.
|
So, Mary's alleged role as "The Mother of God" was important but, yet, women in the Catholic Church are not allowed to hold the highest office of being Priest and especially, of being Pope? (I WAS Catholic at one time and have since denounced it for these very reasons of hypocracy) That's akin to saying that women's only role is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant! They have no use in the workforce and men rule the world and all in it!
|
I hold in the highest reguard a woman's role to be a mother. That is way more important than being a priest or Pope. You bring that fact as being a shame on all women (being barefoot and pregnant).
Let me tell you who really rules the world, it's women. It's a farse to think otherwise. Women have the power in the home and family, just ask any family member.
Also, if you believe in the bible, who did the devil tempt in the guarden? The man Adam? Of course not. Just imagine Adam going to Eve and saying, "Eve, I met this snake, and it told me if we eat from the fruit of knowledge, we'll be like God." How do you think that would go over. No, the devil went to Eve the one with the power. Adam would do anything his wife would tell him.
And both were punished after being cast out of the guarden. Eve get's labor pains, and Adam must labor to survive.
Of course, if you don't believe in the bible, it's still an interesting tale. |
|
|
|
03/21/2009 05:03:00 PM · #1940 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I hold in the highest reguard a woman's role to be a mother. That is way more important than being a priest or Pope. You bring that fact as being a shame on all women (being barefoot and pregnant).
Let me tell you who really rules the world, it's women. It's a farse to think otherwise. Women have the power in the home and family, just ask any family member.
Also, if you believe in the bible, who did the devil tempt in the guarden? The man Adam? Of course not. Just imagine Adam going to Eve and saying, "Eve, I met this snake, and it told me if we eat from the fruit of knowledge, we'll be like God." How do you think that would go over. No, the devil went to Eve the one with the power. Adam would do anything his wife would tell him.
And both were punished after being cast out of the guarden. Eve get's labor pains, and Adam must labor to survive.
Of course, if you don't believe in the bible, it's still an interesting tale. |
Although you have the part about women ruling the world right, some of your general attitudes seem just a tad chauvinistic, or at the very least, slightly condescending.......8>) |
|
|
|
03/31/2009 02:02:39 AM · #1941 |
I don't know if this has been posted yet but its pretty interesting. It pretty much debunks all the passages used in the bible to condemn homosexuality:
Six Bible Passages
I mean, to me the point is pretty much moot because it shouldn't matter what the bible says one way or the other when it comes to laws, but since some people think it does, figured its best to fight fire with fire here.
And to add to  Mousie's sentiment of giving personal stories to humanize "the gays". I'm now in my first relationship with a female and well... its a relationship like any other. The differences lie only in her differences as a person just like every guy I have dated has been different, she is different too. Oh except for the fact that she speaks "girl", which is just completely awesome (if you don't know what I'm talking about then you don't speak it either or haven't at least read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus).
But in all seriousness, I treat this relationship like any other. I've never been a huge fan of PDA but we hold hands and sometimes we hug. I'm not trying to show off but am not trying to hide either. I just want to be myself. And yea we get looks, but to me its amusing. The most common one is the "I'm about to smile at you because you are smiling at me but just caught sight of you holding that girls hand, oh my I'm uncomfortable. *glance at hands, glance at face, glance at hands, glance at face* BUT... you don't *look* gay. Brain explosion!" Or at least that's what I imagine goes on in their heads because that's what I like to do.
Anyway, getting completely off topic. To sum up, I'm bisexual (oh shudder, oh no! what horrible connotations go with that term!) :) And whether "the one" happens to be a guy or a girl, I'd like to be able to marry he or she. And I don't really give a F*** what anyone else has to say about it. Either way I'm going to keep fighting to have gay marriage legalized, and if its not, and I happen to want to marry a female, well I'll just do it in my own way and if the rest of the country catches up, that's great. If not, well then I just pity the ignorance. |
|
|
|
04/03/2009 06:56:56 PM · #1942 |
If you were in Iowa, you'd be able to get married now... They just legalized it!
Iowa Supreme Court Unanimous In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage
Iowa of all places!
You can't stop us forever, conservatives!
Also, did you know that anti-gay hate crimes are way up in California because of Prop 8? That's what we're dealing with here folks. By whipping up fear and anger to deny me rights, you've also significantly increased the violence against my peers. You should read the gay news. It's a litany of beatings, killings, and property destruction. Good job, conservatives!
In other news, Vermont has overwhelmingly passed gay marriage laws in both houses, unprompted by the courts, and has only a little more review and a possible Governor's veto to pass before it becomes law. Even with a veto, there's a really good chance of it passing anyway! The numbers in both houses are fantastic.
Vermont House Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill 95-52
So, despite my mixed feelings about the political limbo my own marriage is in, it's a banner year for equal rights so far!
Message edited by author 2009-04-03 18:59:29. |
|
|
|
04/03/2009 10:22:01 PM · #1943 |
Nice to hear that progress is being made Mousie. Sadly, some are resistant to change.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/03/2009 10:29:32 PM · #1944 |
That's such exciting news :D
And California... YOU SUCK!!
(not all Californians, but the gov't.) |
|
|
|
04/03/2009 11:11:26 PM · #1945 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
That's such exciting news :D
And California... YOU SUCK!!
(not all Californians, but the gov't.) |
Fer key-rice-sakes, Ahhhhnold's the guv'na!
What d'ya expect?????
|
|
|
|
04/04/2009 01:59:54 AM · #1946 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
That's such exciting news :D
And California... YOU SUCK!!
(not all Californians, but the gov't.) |
Fer key-rice-sakes, Ahhhhnold's the guv'na!
What d'ya expect????? |
Yeah, he should have stuck to this;
and kept outta people's relationships. |
|
|
|
04/04/2009 02:23:32 AM · #1947 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
That's such exciting news :D
And California... YOU SUCK!!
(not all Californians, but the gov't.) |
Fer key-rice-sakes, Ahhhhnold's the guv'na!
What d'ya expect????? |
Yeah, he should have stuck to this;
and kept outta people's relationships. |
Actually, I'm pretty sure that he opposed the ban on gay marriage and expressed a desire to see the California Supreme Court overturn the ban. |
|
|
|
04/04/2009 10:14:40 AM · #1948 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Actually, I'm pretty sure that he opposed the ban on gay marriage and expressed a desire to see the California Supreme Court overturn the ban. |
Yeah.....my point was that a state that continuously elects entertainers and actors to its governing offices is of questionable sense.
Although......the Death Valley Days guy did end up in the White House.....
Only in America!.......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/04/2009 10:50:27 AM · #1949 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Only in America!.......8>) |
True that:-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-04 11:26:05. |
|
|
|
04/04/2009 11:21:10 AM · #1950 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yeah.....my point was that a state that continuously elects entertainers and actors to its governing offices is of questionable sense.
Although......the Death Valley Days guy did end up in the White House..... |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Only in America!.......8>) |
Vaclav Havel, prize-winning playwright, was elected President of the Czech Republic after the breakup of the Soviet bloc. |
|
