| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2009 10:23:06 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by MattO:
How is this not in rant already? It should have started there.
Matt |
Thank you!! |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:32:56 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Like I mentioned a page ago on this thread, marriage is a holy sacrament and its the very reason why the Church is against it. I understand the church is old fashioned but for good reasons, and this is probably why-
Lets say the Earth gets hit by a meteor or some other catastrophe. (Lets just say) Most of humanity perishes. All human survivors are mostly homosexual. The human race goes extinct...
Now the TRUE meaning of Marriage is a spiritual right of passage. A true biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner. |
oh my...where to start:
1) "The" church is a private place and can thus hold its own opinions, but not all oppose same sex unions. Also, if the church is old fashion for good reason, would you follow its words to a T, whore out your daughters, sell them as virgins for a high price and consider those of darker skin to be cursed? I certainly hope that's not the same kind of old fashioned which you are speaking of.
2) (Let's just say) Your theory is ridiculous. How would homosexuals be the majority of the survivors? They make up less than 10% of the population. And "let's just say" that we all get nuked somehow and a majority of the population becomes sterile, ever heard of artificial insemination? Are you against that too? Also, if I was playing for your side, I could say that if homosexuals were somehow apart from the rest of straight humanity, then you get what you want anyway because I'm assuming you don't like "gay" babies either, so you should be happy if they go extinct. By the way, how can it be that "All human survivors are mostly homosexual."? I wasn't aware that a person could be partially homosexual. For example, are you 50% German, 25% Italian, and 25% Gay? (I know what you meant by that statement, but it was poor English which makes me further question the validity of your argument).
2) How do you know what the TRUE meaning of Marriage is? How do you know the absolute truth of anything? Are you God? It also happens to be a legal matter, not just a religious one.
3) "A true [there's that word again] biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner." How are souls biological? Could you please show me where the soul gene is? If you weren't aware, homosexuality occurs in nature with dolphins, chimps, and penguins. I realize that by the "natural manner", you probably mean in a way that produces a child. Doesn't that old fashioned church teach that you should only fornicate when you mean to create a child? If you have ever committed a sexual act that was knowingly not going to create another human being, then by your argument, you sir are unnatural.
...go...
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:33:50 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by MattO:
How is this not in rant already? It should have started there.
Matt |
It didn't start as one, but yes, it is getting a little hot in here (admittedly I'm getting more adamant than I originallly planned).
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 22:35:53.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:35:11 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wonder how many people this would make a difference for every year? |
I think you should use this point to questions the millions of dollars being spent by anti-gay "Christian" groups to actively fight gay rights. Why don't they use that money for something more useful? Like doing something good in the world instead of spreading lies and hate?
And again, I have to use my wheelchair analogy from the other thread to this point. How many people are actually in a wheel chair? A very small percentage but we are still making accommodations, with parking spots, bathrooms, ramps, anti-discrimination regulations. It takes time in the short run but once things get going, America is going to be a better place for handicap people. And with no huge campaigns being fought AGAINST that progress it is taking a lot less time than it would if there was a huge "moral" and "legal" struggle on the very basis of "should these people be treated equally". |
On a matter such as this, you cannot convince the individuals whose values are constrained by dogma. It doesn't allow for broader acceptance without guilt.
You make a strong argument. Now if you could find a prophet to support your perspective, it might stick. ;-) |
Hehe. Hilarious. You know my friends and I were discussing making a cult one day. It's a way to make money and have TOTAL control over some of your fellow men. But we decided we didn't have the stomach for it. And those dollar sign eyes would be a real constraint on my eyesight and my photography would suffer and yea... just such a complicated thing you know? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:36:55 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MattO:
How is this not in rant already? It should have started there.
Matt |
Perhaps because yours is the first post providing the necessary qualification?
ETA: Although, others are helping you out ... :-(
Please limit the discussion in this thread to the stated topic of equal application of immigration law, and continue any discussion of gay marriage issues in the gay marriage thread. Thank you.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 22:42:18. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:39:33 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Profanity? I have to keep "profanity" down because I said heck but you can make numerous references to my age? |
"heck" is far from profanity. I'm referring to using "Jesus" in a flippant context. Personally I can withstand 20 f-bombs (which technically qualify as "vulgarity" instead of "profanity", quick cussing lesson :)) for ever time someone says "Jesus Christ!". I'll let the f-bomb go as a simple sign of their lack of culture, but the latter actually bothers me, so I say something. See? We have something in common! :) We both like to speak out! |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:45:32 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm referring to using "Jesus" in a flippant context. |
What's your opinion of the common evasions "Gee!" "Jeez!" and "Sheesh!"? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:45:41 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I have nothing against gay marriage as a legal entity. In my own personal beliefs I have nothing against it religiously as well, but being a Catholic, I also understand that the catholic church can be very slow to reform, and the issue of gay marriage is one, that in the foreseeable future, they will not change on. |
I find it interesting you would expect the Catholic churh to eventually change their views, faith built on Biblical values is faith built on what we believe is the word of God, we may not always like what it says but it is what it is. Peoples views and beliefs will always change but religion built on God's word should not expected to be swayed by man's beliefs. I say that not to condem or bash gays but rather to stat my opinion on peoples desire to change God's will. There are sins in my life that I would love God not to recognize anymore to give me the freedom to do what ever I want but I can not and do not expect God to change.
As for extending rights to groups based on sexual preferences the world has every right to do what they think is right. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:49:29 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Like I mentioned a page ago on this thread, marriage is a holy sacrament and its the very reason why the Church is against it. I understand the church is old fashioned but for good reasons, and this is probably why-
Lets say the Earth gets hit by a meteor or some other catastrophe. (Lets just say) Most of humanity perishes. All human survivors are mostly homosexual. The human race goes extinct...
Now the TRUE meaning of Marriage is a spiritual right of passage. A true biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner. |
oh my...where to start:
1) "The" church is a private place and can thus hold its own opinions, but not all oppose same sex unions. Also, if the church is old fashion for good reason, would you follow its words to a T, whore out your daughters, sell them as virgins for a high price and consider those of darker skin to be cursed? I certainly hope that's not the same kind of old fashioned which you are speaking of.
2) (Let's just say) Your theory is ridiculous. How would homosexuals be the majority of the survivors? They make up less than 10% of the population. And "let's just say" that we all get nuked somehow and a majority of the population becomes sterile, ever heard of artificial insemination? Are you against that too? Also, if I was playing for your side, I could say that if homosexuals were somehow apart from the rest of straight humanity, then you get what you want anyway because I'm assuming you don't like "gay" babies either, so you should be happy if they go extinct. By the way, how can it be that "All human survivors are mostly homosexual."? I wasn't aware that a person could be partially homosexual. For example, are you 50% German, 25% Italian, and 25% Gay? (I know what you meant by that statement, but it was poor English which makes me further question the validity of your argument).
2) How do you know what the TRUE meaning of Marriage is? How do you know the absolute truth of anything? Are you God? It also happens to be a legal matter, not just a religious one.
3) "A true [there's that word again] biological union of TWO souls, joined as one, in a natural manner." How are souls biological? Could you please show me where the soul gene is? If you weren't aware, homosexuality occurs in nature with dolphins, chimps, and penguins. I realize that by the "natural manner", you probably mean in a way that produces a child. Doesn't that old fashioned church teach that you should only fornicate when you mean to create a child? If you have ever committed a sexual act that was knowingly not going to create another human being, then by your argument, you sir are unnatural.
...go... |
Amen! :-) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:52:10 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I find it interesting you would expect the Catholic churh to eventually change their views, faith built on Biblical values is faith built on what we believe is the word of God, we may not always like what it says but it is what it is. |
That would be the same Church which imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun and that there were mountains on the Moon? It took almost 400 years, but they did ultimately accept that change.
Science reveals the universe as it really works, piece by piece. You may not always like it, but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 10:56:23 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I find it interesting you would expect the Catholic churh to eventually change their views, faith built on Biblical values is faith built on what we believe is the word of God, we may not always like what it says but it is what it is. |
That would be the same Church which imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun and that there were mountains on the Moon? It took almost 400 years, but they did ultimately accept that change.
Science reveals the universe as it really works, piece by piece. You may not always like it, but it is what it is. |
I think you are confusing what man did with religion not the other way around! |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:05:14 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm referring to using "Jesus" in a flippant context. |
What's your opinion of the common evasions "Gee!" "Jeez!" and "Sheesh!"? |
I give them the pass. But I got my eye on you! ;) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:08:38 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I find it interesting you would expect the Catholic churh to eventually change their views, faith built on Biblical values is faith built on what we believe is the word of God, we may not always like what it says but it is what it is. |
That would be the same Church which imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun and that there were mountains on the Moon? It took almost 400 years, but they did ultimately accept that change.
Science reveals the universe as it really works, piece by piece. You may not always like it, but it is what it is. |
I think you are confusing what man did with religion not the other way around! |
Right back at you. How is this concept any different? Back then they thought saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe was going against god and the "natural order". People today think being gay is going against god and the "natural order".
It's the same exact thing. You are ants in a maze, nowhere closer to finding the answers than you were hundreds of years ago. That goes for all of us! The difference is some of you act like you have the maze schematics in your back pockets. And maybe you do if you truly believe the Bible is that. But that still doesn't mean you know how to read them. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:08:40 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I find it interesting you would expect the Catholic churh to eventually change their views, faith built on Biblical values is faith built on what we believe is the word of God, we may not always like what it says but it is what it is. |
That would be the same Church which imprisoned Galileo for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun and that there were mountains on the Moon? It took almost 400 years, but they did ultimately accept that change.
Science reveals the universe as it really works, piece by piece. You may not always like it, but it is what it is. |
I think you are confusing what man did with religion not the other way around! |
PapaBob - I think I get where you are trying to come from - that the word of God will not change - but keep in mind that the english version that you read is not the exact words that were originally written - they are translated and modernized. There has been much controversy around the words that have been translated into the word 'homosexual' - for example, the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' used by Paul in two letters. The first is I Cor. 6:9-10, where the NIV translates this word to "homosexual offenders" but then in the other letter by Paul, in I Tim. 1:9-10, the NIV translates this word to "pervert". Why two different translations of the same word in the same version? In other versions, this word is translated to "child abuser". |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:12:33 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Profanity? I have to keep "profanity" down because I said heck but you can make numerous references to my age? |
"heck" is far from profanity. I'm referring to using "Jesus" in a flippant context. Personally I can withstand 20 f-bombs (which technically qualify as "vulgarity" instead of "profanity", quick cussing lesson :)) for ever time someone says "Jesus Christ!". I'll let the f-bomb go as a simple sign of their lack of culture, but the latter actually bothers me, so I say something. See? We have something in common! :) We both like to speak out! |
Oh come on Doc. I mean we all have our preferences but that is going a little far don't you think? To try and ask me to stop using Jesus Christ's name like that? I don't prescribe to your religion so to me its as arbitrary as telling me not to say Goodness! or Oh my! I see people use the term "gay" to describe something bad all the time and unless its in an especially horrible context I let it slide off my back even though it is really offensive. You gotta pick your battles on this one I think.
But I know it was pretty much just a distraction from the real issue, as per usual. Even if I spoke like a text book you'd find a way so I don't see a point in changing my speech patterns. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:21:46 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Profanity? I have to keep "profanity" down because I said heck but you can make numerous references to my age? |
"heck" is far from profanity. I'm referring to using "Jesus" in a flippant context. Personally I can withstand 20 f-bombs (which technically qualify as "vulgarity" instead of "profanity", quick cussing lesson :)) for ever time someone says "Jesus Christ!". I'll let the f-bomb go as a simple sign of their lack of culture, but the latter actually bothers me, so I say something. See? We have something in common! :) We both like to speak out! |
Oh come on Doc. I mean we all have our preferences but that is going a little far don't you think? To try and ask me to stop using Jesus Christ's name like that? I don't prescribe to your religion so to me its as arbitrary as telling me not to say Goodness! or Oh my! |
Ummm... I'm gonna have to chime in on this one.
Even if one is not a Christian, there's still a chance that there is a God who quite clearly said not to "take the Lord's name in vain".
Christian or not, I suppose it's up to you as to whether you want to risk this one.
I think he was just giving you a 'heads up' on the issue. *grin* |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:25:14 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
PapaBob - I think I get where you are trying to come from - that the word of God will not change - but keep in mind that the english version that you read is not the exact words that were originally written - they are translated and modernized. There has been much controversy around the words that have been translated into the word 'homosexual' - for example, the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' used by Paul in two letters. The first is I Cor. 6:9-10, where the NIV translates this word to "homosexual offenders" but then in the other letter by Paul, in I Tim. 1:9-10, the NIV translates this word to "pervert". Why two different translations of the same word in the same version? In other versions, this word is translated to "child abuser". |
Some words are harder to translate to english. The word there is potentially one made up by Paul as a gemisch of two words and literally means "man bedder". The Oxford Bible Commentary, a purely scholarly approach to the Bible (and provided as a wonderful gift from Louis) has no agenda or interesting in taking one side or the other. It says, "The two terms translated (NRSV) as "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (v.9) have been the subject of some debate. The first (lit. soft people) could refer to "womanizers" (ie.e those involved in heterosexual profligacy) but could also mean the passive partner in male homosexual acts; the second is a rare term (lit. sleeper with males) which probably designates the penetrating partner in male-with-male sex. However, the Bible certainly has other more clear passages (both OT and NT) speaking to homosexuality and has a STRONG theme of sexual purity.
Anyway, I'm not saying you aren't bringing up a valid coversation, but people often glean the misconception that the Bible has become less and less accurate as the centuries have passed. I've spoken on this many times and it is patently false. As time goes on and our scholarly textual criticism advances along with more finds of texts, our knowledge about what the original scriptures says has actually improved. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:26:16 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh come on Doc. I mean we all have our preferences but that is going a little far don't you think? To try and ask me to stop using Jesus Christ's name like that? I don't prescribe to your religion so to me its as arbitrary as telling me not to say Goodness! or Oh my! I see people use the term "gay" to describe something bad all the time and unless its in an especially horrible context I let it slide off my back even though it is really offensive. You gotta pick your battles on this one I think. |
Well, I pick my battles. I let the f-bombs go, I speak up about this. Consider it one of my bizarre eccentricities... |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:26:37 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by dcanossa:
I have just been wondering if people out of the gay community supports equality. I don't know if any of you has ever heard of the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), a bill that was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy and in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Americans in loving and committed relationships are often forced to make heartbreaking decisions to maintain their relationship. More often than not, these include having to leave the United States in order to be with the person they love.
There are American citizens forced to give up careers, leave behind aging parents and young adult children who rely on them and leave a community which benefits from their ongoing and active participation.
The Uniting American Families Act simply seeks to provide gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents the right to sponsor their partners for immigration. It includes the same process and penalties as applied in heterosexual sponsorship applications.
Do we support equal Civil Rights for everyone at DPC? It will be interesting to hear what you think!
Thank you!
Diego
PS. If you want/need more information about UAFA, you can go to www.out4immigration.org and www.immigrationequality.org |
Just referencing the original topic... (There's some good, calm, reasonable, discussion going on here from both sides of the issue - that's nice for a change.) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:28:47 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
....I have a gay friend who I hug every time I see and we hold hands in public - but neither of us are straight/ |
...and similarly there are several men I know that I hug and kiss on the cheeks every time we meet and none of us are gay, but simply French Canadian.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:30:00 PM · #96 |
I think we all should try to be respectful of one another. We are all in the same community here - all with a common interest. We will all have differing opinions on a variety of subjects, but we do not need to try to intentionally rub anything in anyone's face.
Monica - Jason finds the use of J.C.'s name in vain offensive - so let's be respectful and refrain from using that.
But in turn, Jason, Monica found the use of the phrase "Grow Up" offensive, so in turn let's be respectful and refrain from using that.
Sorry - I am not very good a mediating, but you get my drift!
For the love of photography - let's try to get along :P |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:33:56 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Originally posted by dcanossa:
I have just been wondering if people out of the gay community supports equality. I don't know if any of you has ever heard of the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), a bill that was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy and in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Americans in loving and committed relationships are often forced to make heartbreaking decisions to maintain their relationship. More often than not, these include having to leave the United States in order to be with the person they love.
There are American citizens forced to give up careers, leave behind aging parents and young adult children who rely on them and leave a community which benefits from their ongoing and active participation.
The Uniting American Families Act simply seeks to provide gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents the right to sponsor their partners for immigration. It includes the same process and penalties as applied in heterosexual sponsorship applications.
Do we support equal Civil Rights for everyone at DPC? It will be interesting to hear what you think!
Thank you!
Diego
PS. If you want/need more information about UAFA, you can go to www.out4immigration.org and www.immigrationequality.org |
Just referencing the original topic... (There's some good, calm, reasonable, discussion going on here from both sides of the issue - that's nice for a change.) |
I for one full heartedly support any step towards equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, I support UAFA. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:36:20 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh come on Doc. I mean we all have our preferences but that is going a little far don't you think? To try and ask me to stop using Jesus Christ's name like that? I don't prescribe to your religion so to me its as arbitrary as telling me not to say Goodness! or Oh my! I see people use the term "gay" to describe something bad all the time and unless its in an especially horrible context I let it slide off my back even though it is really offensive. You gotta pick your battles on this one I think. |
Well, I pick my battles. I let the f-bombs go, I speak up about this. Consider it one of my bizarre eccentricities... |
Very bizarre indeed. And Lydia, I see it as no more of a "risk" than being alive every day. I'm not going to avoid stepping on cracks because they MAY break my mothers back. Who has the time for all that fear? God will understand. We're cool. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:37:04 PM · #99 |
First of all, let it be known that I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was trying to explain why the Church is against Gay marriages. I painted a little scenerio in my last post to explain why; probably a bad scenerio, but the Church's point is that in an old world, where there are far less than 6 billion people in the world, homosexuality doesn't lead to creation and expansion of a species and increases chances of extinction. This is why they consider marriage intrinsical.
My meaning of the word marriage was taken from the Catholic view as well. Marriage is one of the sacraments. and according to the Church, it is a biological union of two bodies, and two souls as well. DNA transfer for creation required for the offspring. According to them, Marriage is actually Impossible between Gays. It cannot happen because of this very fact.
Of course, nowadays, the meaning of Marriage has changed. It's old meaning is irrelevant. (to some)
But I do want to add that Gay people are some of the most humble and nicest people in the world. Like I said a few pages ago, the more love in the world the better, but marriage is something else.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 23:38:03. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:37:27 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
....I have a gay friend who I hug every time I see and we hold hands in public - but neither of us are straight/ |
...and similarly there are several men I know that I hug and kiss on the cheeks every time we meet and none of us are gay, but simply French Canadian.
Ray |
Brazilians as well. And most Hispanic cultures I think.
And in Korea its more common to see the same gender holding hands than those of the opposite sex. |
|
