|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2009 06:25:12 AM · #2226 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I don't get him as this intolerant rights stomping monster, just someone who holds a religious view that "marriage" is something between two people of the opposite sex, but also believing you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. |
And......these would be equal rights HOW?????
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 08:32:21 AM · #2227 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
...you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. |
It's already been pointed out that marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545 (the man and woman part was added 21 years after that). Maybe Christian unions should be called something else to avoid defiling the general term with God's commandment (among others) to continue having sex with your slave wife after marrying another wife since most people would find that practice abhorrent on a number of levels. |
You're not going to get an argument from me on the this, I disagree with the Doc's stance here. That wasn't the point of my post to defend his stance. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:04:07 AM · #2228 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
To be fair, Jason has acted as an ambassador in this thread, presenting the case of the religious right. Without his input, there wouldn't be any intelligent debate to be had here. |
Except for that niggling little point where some of us have to wonder what's intelligent about "his kind" wanting to discriminate against gays on the basis of their judgement of them, and again.....that little thing about ONE answer about how gay marriage will destroy the institution.
It's like Doc's little story about the kid he saw in the office. I don't care that you were a good do-bee in a situation like that. It's akin to the old adage "I can't possibly be prejudiced....I have a black friend.".
Will you open your heart and your home to a gay couple because they are good and decent people of character and love them for who they are? In a truly good Christian manner as your brother children of God? |
Look, Jason has his opinions, and he shares them with a large portion of this country to one extent or another. If we are going to change the minds of people who share his opinion, wouldn't it help to understand what it's based upon? Should we take the Bush doctrine and just blast the hell out him, or take the Obama doctrine and try to understand and reason with him and hope to change him? It's fine to shout from the rafters that he's wrong, but what does that ultimately accomplish? Real change comes from identifying what's wrong and working to change it. If all you succeed in doing is pushing him away, then he's won the battle. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:05:34 AM · #2229 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I've known Jason for a long time. I would not call him a member of the religious right. I know his politics are of that ilk at all.
He is a vigorous debater, even sometimes taking the "other" side just for the sake of a healthy debate.
How can you argue that his views cause you pain and at the same time argue that gay marriage has no effect on him?
His views can't hurt you anymore than your marriage can hurt him. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. |
Actually, I don't believe that Jason is a member of the religious right. In fact, from what I've gleaned from these rants (if that's anything to go by), I'd say he's pretty centrist, maybe even a little left. As for the hypocrisy, see Mousie's response. It pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:10:04 AM · #2230 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I don't get him as this intolerant rights stomping monster, just someone who holds a religious view that "marriage" is something between two people of the opposite sex, but also believing you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. |
And......these would be equal rights HOW????? |
I disagree with Jason and his position but through his post I see how he is battling internally here between a religious belief, which he holds dearly, and his belief how people should be treated has humans with dignity and respect. I can understand, yet not agree, how he rationalizes the thought that giving civil unions the same rights as marriages yet calling them something different is giving them equal rights. It's a push for him, he gives the same legal rights to homosexuals yet maintains the "sanctity" of the union between man and women by having it named something different. This is how he is able to come to terms with both of his beliefs which have conflicting views with each other. My original post wasn't defending his position since I disagree with him and see the fallacies in his logic, just that I don't get him as this intolerant monster but more of a man torn, jmo.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:59:57 AM · #2231 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I disagree with Jason and his position but through his post I see how he is battling internally here between a religious belief, which he holds dearly, and his belief how people should be treated has humans with dignity and respect. |
Yes, of course and that's commendable, but I think several of us are just trying to point out the self-evident fallacy of that statement. Namely, that he thinks his ideals of morality are ultimately based upon the word of God, and it's plainly not so.
This truth cannot be rationalized away: the Bible very clearly advocates such practices as stoning adulterers to death and requiring women to wear veils. The Taliban follows these guidelines to the letter, yet most Christians (presumably including Jason) view their practices as horrific. Consequently, even the most devout Christians MUST hold some other personal standard above that of their sacred texts- some personal understanding of morality that compels them to recognize and ignore direct instructions from God as bad. It's an inescapable conclusion, and once people recognize that, hopefully they'll realize that the only guidelines they're really following are their own personal opinions formed by a lifetime of experience and influences from their social environment and people they recognize as authority figures. Discrimination against homosexuals, blacks, women or any other group is a reflection of personal prejudice, no more rational as "universal morality" than forcing women to wear veils or stoning adulterers. If you claim to be compelled to heed the word of a god, and then proceed to pick and choose which of those words to follow, you forfeit that claim!
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 10:27:00. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 11:17:35 AM · #2232 |
| Looks like New York is evolving. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 11:56:31 AM · #2233 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Looks like New York is evolving. |
I liked this part:
He said, âI understand the trepidation and the anxiety that people feel right now,â but said that ârights should not be stifled by fearâ and that âsilence should not be a response to injustice.â
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 11:56:47. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 12:44:35 PM · #2234 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I disagree with Jason and his position but through his post I see how he is battling internally here between a religious belief, which he holds dearly, and his belief how people should be treated has humans with dignity and respect. I can understand, yet not agree, how he rationalizes the thought that giving civil unions the same rights as marriages yet calling them something different is giving them equal rights. It's a push for him, he gives the same legal rights to homosexuals yet maintains the "sanctity" of the union between man and women by having it named something different. This is how he is able to come to terms with both of his beliefs which have conflicting views with each other. My original post wasn't defending his position since I disagree with him and see the fallacies in his logic, just that I don't get him as this intolerant monster but more of a man torn, jmo. |
I don't see him as a monster, either, it is *MY* belief that a belief system that promotes discrimination in any form is wrong.
That doesn't mean that I see him as a monster on any level, it just frustrates me that a man who I fundamentally respect and admire has a view that doesn't make sense to me.
Through these threads I actually have a better understanding for why some people feel the way they do, and hold their beliefs......goodness knows I would never put Jason in the same category as Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps even though to me discrimination is like kinda dead, or sorta preganant......there is no degrees of it for me, either you're discriminating, or you're not.
That said, I have to acknowledge that there are things about my views that people don't much like either, so I have to believe that I can work with Jason over time, as I'm sure he hopes that I will remain open to his input. He was kind enough to send me a book which I *will* read that hopefully will give me more insight into how he views things.
I have also learned, somewhat, about how to engage in these discussions without going completely insane (IMO anyway, I know sometimes it doesn't look that way) but I am also passionate about my position if I feel that people whom I know and love, fully respecting their positions of culture and beliefs, are being sleighted. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 12:52:35 PM · #2235 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Look, Jason has his opinions, and he shares them with a large portion of this country to one extent or another. If we are going to change the minds of people who share his opinion, wouldn't it help to understand what it's based upon? |
ABSOLUTELY!!!
PLEASE explain to me, in simple terms, how my two gay friends who are married have any effect on the sanctity of marriage.
I can tell you that these two men, whom I love and enjoy as decent, caring, and honest people, exhibit the characteristics of a good marriage in my eyes.
And since I have been with my wife for 31 years, married for 26 of those, I feel I speak from a position of some knowledge.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 12:58:45 PM · #2236 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Look, Jason has his opinions, and he shares them with a large portion of this country to one extent or another. If we are going to change the minds of people who share his opinion, wouldn't it help to understand what it's based upon? |
ABSOLUTELY!!!
PLEASE explain to me, in simple terms, how my two gay friends who are married have any effect on the sanctity of marriage.
I can tell you that these two men, whom I love and enjoy as decent, caring, and honest people, exhibit the characteristics of a good marriage in my eyes.
And since I have been with my wife for 31 years, married for 26 of those, I feel I speak from a position of some knowledge. |
That's a great question, and I would love to hear Jason answer it. I can't, because I agree with you, Jeb. However, if we don't foster an environment where Jason feels comfortable answering these kinds of questions without getting hammered, we'll never know. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate his answers, let's just try to keep the emotions at simmer instead of boil. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 01:40:03 PM · #2237 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Look, Jason has his opinions, and he shares them with a large portion of this country to one extent or another. If we are going to change the minds of people who share his opinion, wouldn't it help to understand what it's based upon? |
ABSOLUTELY!!!
PLEASE explain to me, in simple terms, how my two gay friends who are married have any effect on the sanctity of marriage.
I can tell you that these two men, whom I love and enjoy as decent, caring, and honest people, exhibit the characteristics of a good marriage in my eyes.
And since I have been with my wife for 31 years, married for 26 of those, I feel I speak from a position of some knowledge. |
That's a great question, and I would love to hear Jason answer it. I can't, because I agree with you, Jeb. However, if we don't foster an environment where Jason feels comfortable answering these kinds of questions without getting hammered, we'll never know. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate his answers, let's just try to keep the emotions at simmer instead of boil. |
I believe that has been attempted for several days now... (ETA) no weeks? years? And the basic gist of it is "I am right, you are wrong, can't you see why you are wrong? Well I'm certainly not wrong because I'm right. I already SAID that. Maybe you just aren't spending enough time on your world view. Maybe you need to be more concrete so I can nail you to a wall."
So he gets mad he can't nail me (and those like me) to a wall, and then when others nail his beliefs to a wall, he runs. I don't think its our job to make him feel comfortable, he certainly hasn't done the same for the opposition.
And anyway, his side isn't going to get any more clear than he's already made it because there IS no clarity. The only answer is "nuh uhhh! God said so!" and when a huge list of other things "god said" that people don't listen to any more is brought to the table, there is a lovely tap dance number with some finger pointing for extra pizazz.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 13:40:31. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 01:56:38 PM · #2238 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by eqsite:
That's a great question, and I would love to hear Jason answer it. I can't, because I agree with you, Jeb. However, if we don't foster an environment where Jason feels comfortable answering these kinds of questions without getting hammered, we'll never know. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate his answers, let's just try to keep the emotions at simmer instead of boil. |
I believe that has been attempted for several days now... (ETA) no weeks? years? And the basic gist of it is "I am right, you are wrong, can't you see why you are wrong? Well I'm certainly not wrong because I'm right. I already SAID that. Maybe you just aren't spending enough time on your world view. Maybe you need to be more concrete so I can nail you to a wall."
So he gets mad he can't nail me (and those like me) to a wall, and then when others nail his beliefs to a wall, he runs. I don't think its our job to make him feel comfortable, he certainly hasn't done the same for the opposition.
And anyway, his side isn't going to get any more clear than he's already made it because there IS no clarity. The only answer is "nuh uhhh! God said so!" and when a huge list of other things "god said" that people don't listen to any more is brought to the table, there is a lovely tap dance number with some finger pointing for extra pizazz. |
You see, that's the part that interests me. At some point, people began to accept that slavery was not right, or interracial marriage was ok. What does it take for someone to change their worldview to accept something that they were brought up believing was so wrong? Is it even possible, or does it take generations? I'd be willing to bet that Jason is closer to changing his view on gay marriage than he was five years ago. I'd like to understand how that process works inside of him, because if it can, maybe it can happen in others. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:05:54 PM · #2239 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
PLEASE explain to me, in simple terms, how my two gay friends who are married have any effect on the sanctity of marriage. |
I will try to answer you Jeb, because you seem to be asking an honest question. I thought about PM'ing you direct, but I am going to risk openly answering.
Here, to me, is the crux of the situation. Two issues come into play when I view Gay Marriage. Iâll sum up and then elaborate. First, for the Judeo-Christian, marriage is a sacred bond formed by God. Second, sexual purity is important in Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Concerning marriage, I think the following passage from Matthew is enlightening (I underline a critical part).
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This passage highlights how the Judeo-Christian tradition views marriage. It views it as a covenant that is formed by God. To us, it is âsacredâ (Made or declared holy). I also point out the passage also speaks directly to âmanâ and âwifeâ, but I will not belabor that point and it isnât, in fact, critical.
Concerning sexual purity, I think it is necessary to understand that this is important to the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is clear throughout both the Old and New Testament that one cannot simply have sex with whomever one wants whenever one wants. There are limits to our liberty. Sexual relations are to be the exclusive domain of a man and woman within the confines of marriage. This excludes homosexuality, but also excludes adultery and heterosexual sex between non-married individuals.
The conflict with Gay Marriage and how it âaffects the sanctity of marriageâ becomes clear. âGay Marriageâ combines a sacred union with a prohibited act. In effect, God is condoning what he has prohibited. You can also see why the word becomes important. The fact that âmarriageâ may indicate both a legal/civil contract and a sacred one is confusing. Up until now the two meanings overlapped for all intents and purposes very well, but now that may not be the case and confusion arises. This is also where I see the âharmâ done to me or other religious views which share my opinion. A term which Judeo-Christians have at the very least a co-claim on for somewhere between three and five thousands years is being co-opted to mean something new (âco-claimâ is to allow for a purely legal meaning of the term to have separately arisen) that goes against our tradition. It leads to confusion and calls into question the validity of our beliefs as they get passed on. (While I see how those outside may consider that good you can see how those inside may consider that bad.) A great deal of that confusion can be avoided if some other terminology is used to denote the difference between a civil union and a sacred one.
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
Thatâs my best attempt at answering your question Jeb.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 14:32:22. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:07:30 PM · #2240 |
At least if Jason doesn't contribute, this thread can be totally one sided. So, you win. He's certainly not right-wing and he's provided an opposing view in a calm and rational manner(as have most of the rest of the participants). I know it's easy categorize anyone that disagrees with you into the intolerant, Fred Phelps, Christian stereotype but it wouldn't be accurate.
I can't debate with the likes of Shannon, Gordon, and Louis, etc., but it would be pretty dull without Jason's voice. He doesn't need my defense as he is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles but I felt compelled to interject. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:20:47 PM · #2241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
|
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept, which has no reason to be supported by a modern government. Everybody wishing to live with another should have a civil union. All benefits of such a union would be available to whatever forms of co-habitation which might arise in a modern society. So, no more marriage certificates, they'd be replaced with civil union certificates. Religious couples would still be able to have any ceremonies they might desire. The only way to accomplish this across the entire country would be with a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately this would stand no chance of passing.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:22:10 PM · #2242 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by eqsite:
That's a great question, and I would love to hear Jason answer it. I can't, because I agree with you, Jeb. However, if we don't foster an environment where Jason feels comfortable answering these kinds of questions without getting hammered, we'll never know. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't debate his answers, let's just try to keep the emotions at simmer instead of boil. |
I believe that has been attempted for several days now... (ETA) no weeks? years? And the basic gist of it is "I am right, you are wrong, can't you see why you are wrong? Well I'm certainly not wrong because I'm right. I already SAID that. Maybe you just aren't spending enough time on your world view. Maybe you need to be more concrete so I can nail you to a wall."
So he gets mad he can't nail me (and those like me) to a wall, and then when others nail his beliefs to a wall, he runs. I don't think its our job to make him feel comfortable, he certainly hasn't done the same for the opposition.
And anyway, his side isn't going to get any more clear than he's already made it because there IS no clarity. The only answer is "nuh uhhh! God said so!" and when a huge list of other things "god said" that people don't listen to any more is brought to the table, there is a lovely tap dance number with some finger pointing for extra pizazz. |
You see, that's the part that interests me. At some point, people began to accept that slavery was not right, or interracial marriage was ok. What does it take for someone to change their worldview to accept something that they were brought up believing was so wrong? Is it even possible, or does it take generations? I'd be willing to bet that Jason is closer to changing his view on gay marriage than he was five years ago. I'd like to understand how that process works inside of him, because if it can, maybe it can happen in others. |
Oh I believe it can happen. But the person has to be willing. Change is hard, especially when it is a view so deeply ingrained. The scary part is, a lot of people still haven't changed their world view on interracial marriage, racism, etc. Its just that there are laws and social norms in place that curb their expression of those views. And a lot of racist people don't even realize that they are racist. I think most people have some extreme definition of racism in their minds and when they don't fit that they are "in the clear".
Racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The problem isn't as clear cut as "I have black friends" or "I have gay friends". That doesn't mean anything, just like you can still be sexist and have a wife (or husband as the case may be). The word homophobic gets used a lot in these types of discussions but incorrectly. In most cases the person isn't homophobic but a hererosexist (and I think I'm repeating something that has been nicely pointed out before but I feel its a good place to mention it again.)
Heterosexism:
a term that applies to negative attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships.
In other words there is always some level of superiority. My kind is better than your kind because _____(insert some unjustified reason here)____. It seems the Doc doesn't hate gays, but he does find the gay lifestyle to be inferior, and therefor the gays themselves are also inferior, by default.
So back to his views causing pain. His views hold an inherent superiority complex. "My marriage is better than your union/marriage/lack there of." There is no pain in saying "I would like my marriage to be equal to your marriage".
If he doesn't like the emotions that his views elicit, perhaps he should be more cautious. The arguement is inherently personal. Would you tell a black person not to take racist views personally? No. They why tell a homosexual not to take heterosexist views personally? |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:23:12 PM · #2243 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
...you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. |
It's already been pointed out that marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545 (the man and woman part was added 21 years after that). Maybe Christian unions should be called something else to avoid defiling the general term with God's commandment (among others) to continue having sex with your slave wife after marrying another wife since most people would find that practice abhorrent on a number of levels. |
It would be simple to go back to calling the legal contract "marriage" and the others "religious unions." |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:25:46 PM · #2244 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
|
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept, which has no reason to be supported by a modern government. Everybody wishing to live with another should have a civil union. All benefits of such a union would be available to whatever forms of co-habitation which might arise in a modern society. So, no more marriage certificates, they'd be replaced with civil union certificates. Religious couples would still be able to have any ceremonies they might desire. The only way to accomplish this across the entire country would be with a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately this would stand no chance of passing. |
Couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:25:54 PM · #2245 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
|
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ... |
No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ... |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:34:19 PM · #2246 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If he doesn't like the emotions that his views elicit, perhaps he should be more cautious. The arguement is inherently personal. Would you tell a black person not to take racist views personally? No. They why tell a homosexual not to take heterosexist views personally? |
I believe in my post, I explained just why his views would be taken personally, didn't I? |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:35:16 PM · #2247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
PLEASE explain to me, in simple terms, how my two gay friends who are married have any effect on the sanctity of marriage. |
I will try to answer you Jeb, because you seem to be asking an honest question. I thought about PM'ing you direct, but I am going to risk openly answering.
Here, to me, is the crux of the situation. Two issues come into play when I view Gay Marriage. Iâll sum up and then elaborate. First, for the Judeo-Christian, marriage is a sacred bond formed by God. Second, sexual purity is important in Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Concerning marriage, I think the following passage from Matthew is enlightening (I underline a critical part).
Concerning sexual purity, I think it is necessary to understand that this is important to the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is clear throughout both the Old and New Testament that one cannot simply have sex with whomever one wants whenever one wants. There are limits to our liberty. Sexual relations are to be the exclusive domain of a man and woman within the confines of marriage. This excludes homosexuality, but also excludes adultery and heterosexual sex between non-married individuals.
The conflict with Gay Marriage and how it âaffects the sanctity of marriageâ becomes clear. âGay Marriageâ combines a sacred union with a prohibited act. In effect, God is condoning what he has prohibited. You can also see why the word becomes important. The fact that âmarriageâ may indicate both a legal/civil contract and a sacred one is confusing. Up until now the two meanings overlapped for all intents and purposes very well, but now that may not be the case and confusion arises. This is also where I see the âharmâ done to me or other religious views which share my opinion. A term which Judeo-Christians have at the very least a co-claim on for somewhere between three and five thousands years is being co-opted to mean something new (âco-claimâ is to allow for a purely legal meaning of the term to have separately arisen) that goes against our tradition. It leads to confusion and calls into question the validity of our beliefs as they get passed on. (While I see how those outside may consider that good you can see how those inside may consider that bad.) A great deal of that confusion can be avoided if some other terminology is used to denote the difference between a civil union and a sacred one.
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
Thatâs my best attempt at answering your question Jeb. |
Ok... so let me get this straight. You want to fight this fight to avoid "confusion" and questions on the "validity of your beliefs"? Isn't fighting gay marriage doing just that? This seems like a whole mess of confusion.
I'm sorry. I don't understand why you think the rest of the world should cater to your beliefs to our own detriment. I know you are going to attempt to turn that statement around but it stands. Your "detriment", as you have just stated is "confusion". The Gay detriment is discrimination. They are not on the same level by any means. There was confusion when interracial marriage was allowed as well I'm sure. But you are smart, you'll make it through the tough 5 seconds of "confusion".
Again, you failed to explain how gay marriage would be any more detrimental to you than premarital sex. The premarital sex doesn't seem to "confuse" you or degrade your marriage. You want to have sex with one person the rest of your life? That's is great and highly commendable, and I don't mean that sarcastically. Truly it is. And no one is trying to force you to try out other partners because your views go against their views of playing the field.
In other words. Your monogamous, life-long marriage, does nothing to harm a person's ________(gay marriage, interracial marriage, sexual lifestyle, premarital sex, promiscuous ways, whatever)_____,
just like a persons _____(insert random lifestyle here again)________ does nothing to harm your life-long marriage.
ETA: If you think it is wrong in God's eyes, isn't that his job to sort out later? Here, on this earth, at this time, there is no LEGAL reason why 2 gays should not be allowed to marry.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 14:39:38. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:37:06 PM · #2248 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If he doesn't like the emotions that his views elicit, perhaps he should be more cautious. The argument is inherently personal. Would you tell a black person not to take racist views personally? No. They why tell a homosexual not to take heterosexist views personally? |
I believe in my post, I explained just why his views would be taken personally, didn't I? |
I wasn't posing that question to you. Just adding it to sum up my view in general. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:39:28 PM · #2249 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
|
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ... |
No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ... |
Shannon's going to have to provide some citation or meaning to what he said as obviously the concept of marriage existed in Jesus' day by the passage cited and even earlier since he was quoting the Old Testament. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 02:41:17 PM · #2250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps this helps explain how I can also respect and understand how a gay couple can be committed, loving, supportive, and caring toward each other (all good and honorable things) and yet I can disapprove of their âmarriageâ.
|
After reading this it appears to me that the ultimate solution to this marriage/civil union problem is to eliminate one of these. I vote for marriage since it is purely a religious concept ... |
No it was an established civil relationship highjacked by the Church a few centuries ago ... see Shannon's posts ... |
Shannon's going to have to provide some citation or meaning to what he said as obviously the concept of marriage existed in Jesus' day by the passage cited and even earlier since he was quoting the Old Testament. |
Existed long before Jesus' day as well. What is your point? Marriage has existed before, during, along side with, and in conjunction with Christianity. That does not make it a Christian concept. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 03:58:59 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 03:58:59 PM EDT.
|
