| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 04:12:08 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by senoj:
Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule???? |
I believe they call the book The Bible. Wherein it is written....
I haven't read it but I hear it's a "good book"... ;) |
I haven't read it too. Is it the rules for how we live? |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:13:01 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by senoj:
Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule???? |
I believe they call the book The Bible. Wherein it is written....
I haven't read it but I hear it's a "good book"... ;) |
I don't know. It's rather dry, tedious reading and there are a number of plot holes. One major character doesn't even get introduced until well over halfway through. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:14:25 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The issue is that there needs to be a way to distinguish between the two..."spiritual unions" & "civil unions". . |
Why?
P
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:14:49.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:14:55 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by senoj:
Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule???? |
I believe they call the book The Bible. Wherein it is written....
I haven't read it but I hear it's a "good book"... ;) |
I don't know. It's rather dry, tedious reading and there are a number of plot holes. One major character doesn't even get introduced until well over halfway through. |
Thank you but I will not read it. I like Stephan King, it more interesting, And no rules for me :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:16:08 PM · #130 |
Personal Edit: I talk too much...
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:17:17. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:18:40 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by theSaj:
The issue is that there needs to be a way to distinguish between the two..."spiritual unions" & "civil unions". . |
Why?
P |
So we can get religious zealots out of our politics and bedrooms. ;-)
And because "marriage," in the legal sense, automatically provides some highly valued rights. I mentioned some before in this thread. There are others I have not mentioned as well.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:22:39 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by theSaj:
The issue is that there needs to be a way to distinguish between the two..."spiritual unions" & "civil unions". . |
Why?
P |
So we can get religious zealots out of our politics and bedrooms. ;-)
And because "marriage," in the legal sense, automatically provides some highly valued rights. I mentioned some before in this thread. There are others I have not mentioned as well. |
No you misunderstand me.
Why do we need to distinguish between a civil service and a religious one? Both have the same result! Two people legally bound by contract. One may have additional facets to the other but they otherwise are identical.
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:25:46 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I don't understand why any church or its membership feels so threatened by that prospect. |
When entities like churches get sued for not hiring homosexuals which go against their beliefs. Than they get sued for not giving benefits to those homosexuals who they were forced to hire. It AFFECTS THEM!!!!
And they feel threatened, they beliefs are threatened. If you think something is wrong you try to persuade your children from doing it. "Just say no to drugs!" Why? What's wrong with them. Most people believe that the illegal drugs are bad. Now, if the government turned around and said "pot, cocaine & heroine" are okay...how do you think parents would feel? Now, if it went a step further and the government told the parents they are wrong for teaching that drugs are wrong. How would you feel as a parent?
The issue goes back to church & state....predominantly, marriage has been a "spiritual" issue. In fact, in many religions it is one of the highest sacraments. (Catholocism, Judaism, etc) So to create a new thing and use the same name is in a sense the stealing or corrupting of that religions "sacrament".
Why shouldn't the government legalize "homosexual baptism" - sounds kinda weird, because baptism is a religious act. Now if you were to use "homosexuals baths" there would be no problem.
Furthermore, regarding the words. I believe "Matrimony" is derived from the root word for "Mother" (ie: matriarch). Something a homosexual couple cannot do naturally.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:26:17 PM · #134 |
| I think there definitely needs to remain a distinction between the two "marriage" and "civil union". Because of the fact that there needs to be a separation between church and state. Precisely because you need to be able to freely have one without the other. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:29:13 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Pretty simple. And pretty sad, when you think about all the time, money, and energy that's been spent on this debate. Considering the fact that IF these unions were allowed, no one would be physically harmed, no governments would collapse, no neighboring communities would be "threatened", we could have spent this money on armor for our young men and women already in harms way, on our levees in Lousiana, our tired, hungry, poor, and unemployed.
Sorry, to be a wet dishrag, but that's kinda how I feel about it. Yeah, I want the right to marry whomever I please. But, dammit is the "religious right" so scared of what they don't understand that they can't see the forest for the trees? I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. |
So why do the proponents of same-sex marriage keep raising the issue??? Leave things as they are, and move on to more important issues. I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. (Well, unless your a member of PETA - then you probably don't approve of fying fish. But you know what we mean.) :) |
Simple... Because religious right-wing activists want to take rights AWAY from people. It's not that we're fighting to GET rights... It's that we're fighting to KEEP them. |
Religious right-wing activists - you say that like its a bad thing. :)
But seriously, correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm pretty sure I'm not): same-sex marriage is not a right, and never has been. So you ARE fighting to GET rights - you cannot fight to KEEP rights you never had (and therefore nobody is taking away from you). Perhaps I'm missing something subtle in your logic.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
It becomes a matter of survival and justice - not luxury. |
You'll die if you can't marry your partner??? Please explain. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:29:36 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
So we can get religious zealots out of our politics and bedrooms. ;-)
|
Politics...nope...that's their right as citizens (unless you were saying that they should not be granted the right of citizenship). As for the bedroom....homosexuals can already do what they please in their bedrooms.
I believe it's the courtrooms for which they are seeking more rights. And I believe those should be granted, but not just to homosexuals but also polygamists as well.
Originally posted by KaDi:
And because "marriage," in the legal sense, automatically provides some highly valued rights. I mentioned some before in this thread. There are others I have not mentioned as well. |
"legal sense" but a spiritual marriage should convey only the spiritual. A spiritual union, should not receive ANY legal benefits. If you want the legal benefits, file for a civil incorporation as well.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Why do we need to distinguish between a civil service and a religious one? Both have the same result! Two people legally bound by contract. |
Oh, I guess I was mistaken...
You see, I am saying that a "religious one" should not have any legal binding. And should merely be binding on a spiritual level if someone so believes.
So, EVERYONE will be eligable for a "civil union". And everyone will be eligable for a "spiritual union". However, no one will have to recognize a "spiritual union" outside their own faith. That way, those faiths that believe "marriage" to be a sacred sacrament can continue to do so, uninfringed.
The reason why it needs to referred differently is to distinguish it. Otherwise, it is the taking of a religious sacrament away from a religious group.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:33:31. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:33:06 PM · #137 |
Been an interesting read, this has.
A curiosity question. How come, when it comes to gay marraige, or civil unions or however you want to define it, there is a huge uproar, and lots of debates, an (I'm not trying to stereotype) the conservative right has a huge fit about how it will deteriorate the institution of marraige, etc. etc, and yet, when things happen in the public eye, like Brittney Spear's less than one day marriage, not a word is heard? Or at least, not that I heard. Does anyone else find it a bit oxymoronic they want to preserve the sanctity of marraige, and will do everything they can to stop gays from getting married, yet little is done when questionable paractices occur in the heterosexual community?
One other thing, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but evolution has been brought up. My main problem with teaching intelligent design in the SCIENCE classroom is that as of right now, there is no way to test it scientifically, and no scientific evidence. Should it be taught in the curriculum? Sure, but not in the science classroom. Maybe in social studies or religious studies and then you can study all the creationsist and design stories of the world, which I may add, is very interesting stuff. With the ruling in Kansas, basically, any unexplained phenomena can now be taught as science without any method of testing it or any way scientific evidence. This is a slap in the face for science itself, and could have untold longterm consequences. Evolution is taught because there is a scientific method to study it, and there is strong evidence supprting it. Are there holes? Sure, but new things are being discovered everyday. When the intelligent design people can, on the basis of sound science, present a method of testing or evidence, go ahead and introduce it in the scientific classtroom. For now science is based on the ability for it to be tested and evidence, not on faith.
Ok, you may now resume your normal rant thread
For what it's worth, I think gay's should be allowed to marry, and I'm proud to be living in Canada
Edit -spelling and clarification
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:38:07. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:35:26 PM · #138 |
| Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:42:57 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
I think you better learn the meaning of the word " patronising"!
:)
P{
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:45:16 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:46:56 PM · #141 |
"like Brittney Spear's less than one day marriage, not a workd is heard"
Oh it's much talked about and pointed too. But it's very minor in that it has no global relevance. It's outed as an extreme example and nothing more.
Furthermore, it's a short term event as opposed to a multi-decade discussion.
"My main problem with teaching intelligent design in the SCIENCE classroom is that as of right now, there is no way to test it scientifically"
Was there any way to test for the existance of atoms centuries ago? Most of our science was untestable. Who is to say that we will not reach a point in which one day we will be able to test for the extistance of such. Early on, evolution did not have any evidence. Should it not have been taught or discussed? If it hadn't...no one would of researched and sought for evidence. So if you do not discuss the possibility of intelligent influences in design. Who will ever try to discover or scientifically prove it...???
One can do many studies to indicate immense complexity, probability of occurrence, etc. Although not conclusive proof these do suggest the possibility (but not absoluteness) that some affect may have been applied to order or design. Just because we don't have proof should not preclude the possibility.
So when you say I.D. should not be taught. I disagree, it should be put force with the simple basis. "There is immense complexity in the universe and much order has been discovered in our universe all the way down to our DNA. Therefore, some believe that this complexity may point to an external force of design. Conclusive evidence has not yet been provided one way or the other for I.D. theory. This does not mean such is impossible, rather that it needs more research and advancement of science."
Oh BTW, science has acted out on faith....and inconclusive evidence it's entire existance. That's why most of the science facts I was taught in elementary school are now WRONG! So I think you need to review science a bit more closely.
- The Saj |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:47:06 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
When entities like churches get sued for not hiring homosexuals which go against their beliefs. Than they get sued for not giving benefits to those homosexuals who they were forced to hire. It AFFECTS THEM!!!! |
I agree with you that churches should not be required by law to hire anyone that lives "outside" their base of teaching. That is one of the reasons the laws are set up so that they can operate as a non-profit religious entity with their own rules & regulations, by which they can abide without recourse or scrutiny. If they become a for-profit entity, however, it's an entirely different ballgame and the rules change (just as they do for any business corporation).
Unfortunately, history has shown us that big church = big business. (entirely separate argument I know) But wanted to refute your statement.
There's a fine line that's drawn there between "business", "public domain", and "civil rights" that is probably best left out of this discussion, as it detracts from the impetus of the original thread.
As far as your drugs argument, I think the government has certainly shown that it is at least attempting to maintain an outward appearance of abhorrance for drug use through mass media campaigns.
And as far as "homosexual baptism", I'm kinda glad you raised that subject, because just exactly how would you plan to determine which infants were "worthy" of baptism and which weren't? It's certainly not evident in their behavior at that stage of development. And if they are baptized, doesn't that guarantee them a place in Heaven according to the Jesus' Scripture? Sorry, but many of the statements here can't help but remind me of the stories about Jesus throwing the priests out of the Temples for blasphemy and hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:49:53 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by ScottK:
..."You're born that way." So, if we should be allowed to do anything and everything we're "born" with a desire for, what moral ground will you have for saying that a pedopheliac is wrong for abusing a child? They're just doing what they were born to do. Because they are "harming" someone else? Who are you to decide that, especially if it is "loving" and "concensual"? ... |
This really isn't the argument here. No child, lawfully or logically, can enter a consensual relationship. |
Why? Why deny someone the legal right to enter into a "loving" relationship based simply on some arbitrary age limit? What moral right do you have to make that judgement?
Originally posted by KaDi:
But it is clear you want to legislate against harmless acts and continue to deny individuals equal rights under the law. |
I don't want to legislate against anyone - I want to leave things the way they are. The only reason legislation is required is to KEEP things the way they are. But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view. (Just thought I'd save you the effort of typing the names yourself - and even threw in a new one for free.) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:51:30 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view. |
... I don't think you eat snot. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:52:17 PM · #145 |
Religion is bad because it makes people believe things that cannot and have not been proven and it should not be used to gauge issues in current reality, especially when it effects others.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:52:53. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:53:18 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by ScottK:
But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view. |
... I don't think you eat snot. |
But I've been wrong before. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:53:36 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
... But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view. (Just thought I'd save you the effort of typing the names yourself - and even threw in a new one for free.) |
Sorry, but the only name that comes to mind at the moment I won't type here. I never said your point of view had no validity....in fact, I believe the opposite. You, however, have managed to destroy your own integrity with your own words....perhaps you are what you say you are.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:55:56 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Does anyone else find it a bit oxymoronic they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, and will do everything they can to stop gays from getting married, yet little is done when questionable practices occur in the heterosexual community? |
Like most other disagreements, it's an "us vs. them" thing. No matter how bad "we" are, "they" must be stopped (insert your favorite opponents). This reasoning has been used to maintain the status quo on all sorts of issues (wars, slavery, etc.).
Originally posted by pidge:
When the intelligent design people can, on the basis of sound science, present a method of testing or evidence, go ahead and introduce it in the scientific classtroom. For now science is based on the ability for it to be tested and evidence, not on faith. |
I agree. Just because something is complex doesn't mean that it's only possible through magic and miracles. A few hundred years ago, the same "science" was used to explain lightning and disease. Welcome back to the Dark Ages. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:57:54 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Yes. Especially the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by that Christian Jihadist, Bill Clinton. |
I never called anyone a Christian Jihadist. The fact that you append that to my comment providing a link to information is extremely offensive to me!
If you want to talk about the history presented in that link in an intelligent way, please do. If you want to cite a historical instance to defend your point of view, go right ahead. Let's keep this discussion above board. |
The "Christian Jihadist" comment was in reference to this post way back on the second page:
Originally posted by hokie:
It is only "illegal" because we have the Christian jihadist's in America forcing it on us. |
Sorry that it appeared to be aimed at you. It was simply in reading the history that this act stuck out to me in the context of the entire thread, not just your post.
But, since its come back, what exactly in that history do you see as tolerant? A good percentage of them deal with the denial of a freedom (polygamy) aimed at a minority group (Mormons). I will admit I started skimming to towards the bottom, but I didn't see much related to same-sex marriage - other than the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Was the "history of progressive tolerance" meant as sarcasm? If so, it didn't really carry the tone well. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:59:02 PM · #150 |
SJCarter...
You missed my points entirely...*argh*...symantic problems.
You're taking my example of "homosexual baptism" vs. "homosexual bath" in the sense of the act being done. I am using it in a more generic way. As in "bath". Baptism simply means to "immerse" much akin to a bath. However, the greek word carried into english as a name for a type of religious sacrament. If a homosexual opened up a "homosexual spa" and called it "homosexual baptisms" - such would be very offensive.
Similar to how Jews might be offended by a neo-NAZI group selling "NAZI Matzah"
Or the same way, that there was a big fuss when a "white south african" immigrant ran for a competition in a U.S. school for "african-americans".
Likewise, I know full well the government opposes drugs in it's current message. My point was hypothetical. What if they did the opposite, and started promoting drug use. Would not parents feel threatened?
And you say "big church = big business"...guess what it takes money for anything to be in this world. You can't build a church building for free. Nor buy the land for free. Nor have a telephone for free. Likewise, an entity like the Salvation Army might have thousands of buildings, houses, vehicles, etc.
On the other hand I just read an interesting article pointing to a medium size "non-profit" who's CEO received $160,000. Where as a Lt. Col in charge of a similar region in NYC is paid $22,000/yr. The point isn't whether a church has money. But whether the government has a right to establish a policy which infringes on a church that is not causing direct harm to anyone's life or property. |
|
