| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2009 12:51:57 AM · #3251 |
| This is pretty ridiculous. A question here, a question there, but a treatise the length of my leg? Johnny, have some consideration. You're discourteously off-topic. Start a new thread. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:00:07 AM · #3252 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This is pretty ridiculous. A question here, a question there, but a treatise the length of my leg? Johnny, have some consideration. You're discourteously off-topic. Start a new thread. |
Sorry, I didn't get off topic on purpose. It seems that I was lead off topic by all the responses I was getting. That was not my original intention. I can't keep spending hours a day on this thread like I have been anyway.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 01:02:58. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 06:02:35 AM · #3253 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This is pretty ridiculous. A question here, a question there, but a treatise the length of my leg? Johnny, have some consideration. You're discourteously off-topic. Start a new thread. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Sorry, I didn't get off topic on purpose. It seems that I was lead off topic by all the responses I was getting. That was not my original intention. I can't keep spending hours a day on this thread like I have been anyway. |
Okay......so with it a given that as a part of your religion you view being gay as wrong, what do you think of the denial of rights in today's modern society of two people who have made a contract with each other to share a life?
In spite of your beliefs as to immortal soul dispensation, do you feel that it's right to deny people their right to choose a life together simply because of their gender and sexual orientation?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 08:42:38 AM · #3254 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
This is pretty ridiculous. A question here, a question there, but a treatise the length of my leg? Johnny, have some consideration. You're discourteously off-topic. Start a new thread. |
Sorry, I didn't get off topic on purpose. It seems that I was lead off topic by all the responses I was getting. That was not my original intention. I can't keep spending hours a day on this thread like I have been anyway. |
Unfortunately your whole post is invalidated by the fact that god does not exist. (okay... I've got to leave this thread alone....) |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:03:58 PM · #3255 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Sorry, I didn't get off topic on purpose. It seems that I was lead off topic by all the responses I was getting. That was not my original intention. I can't keep spending hours a day on this thread like I have been anyway. |
Originally posted by JH:
Unfortunately your whole post is invalidated by the fact that god does not exist. (okay... I've got to leave this thread alone....) |
Ah, but he lives here in America, where religious freedom is a right.
So.....he can have God in his life, and someone else doesn't have to at all!......8>)
So his post isn't invalidated, it just doesn't apply in your life.
Maybe.......it could be agreed that it doesn't apply as it pertains to gay rights, either!
Just sayin'......
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 13:05:50.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:25:31 PM · #3256 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Louis:
This is pretty ridiculous. A question here, a question there, but a treatise the length of my leg? Johnny, have some consideration. You're discourteously off-topic. Start a new thread. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Sorry, I didn't get off topic on purpose. It seems that I was lead off topic by all the responses I was getting. That was not my original intention. I can't keep spending hours a day on this thread like I have been anyway. |
Okay......so with it a given that as a part of your religion you view being gay as wrong, what do you think of the denial of rights in today's modern society of two people who have made a contract with each other to share a life?
In spite of your beliefs as to immortal soul dispensation, do you feel that it's right to deny people their right to choose a life together simply because of their gender and sexual orientation? |
I believe that God created humans with a need and desire for companionship and fellowship. Genesis 2:18 says, "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."" Personally, I believe that men should meet the need of companionship by finding a woman, and vice versa. I don't think it's a good thing when the government steps on the toes of the church, or when the church steps on the toes of the government. The government should be allowed to do what it wants within the nation apart from religion, and the church should be allowed to do what it wants within the church apart from the government. With that being said, I believe the church has the right to deny gay people a life together within the church and I believe that the government has the right to allow gay people a life together outside the church. If the government started allowing gay marriage in the name of God, I would have something to say about that.
Discrimination against gays is synonymous with denial of rights, at least that is true regarding how we've been using the terms. In the United States, our constitution declares that gun ownership is a right of the people. If the FBI busted into the home of a law abiding citizen and confiscated their legally obtained guns, that would be denial of rights according to the constitution. However, if an illegal alien living in the United States was in possession of illegally obtained guns and the FBI confiscated them, that would not be considered denial of rights because the alien is not a citizen and therefore does not have the right to own a gun in the United States.
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If a bunch of church leaders refused to allow a man and a woman to get married, that would be a denial of rights according to scripture. So here's my question: If a non-Christian gay person wants to have a gay marriage in the church and the church leaders refuse to allow it, can that be considered discrimination and denial of rights when the church never allows that as a right in the first place?
I've been accused of discrimination and supporting the denial of rights of gays, but if you understand my above analogy, you should realize how preposterous that is.
To add:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ah, but he lives here in America, where religious freedom is a right.
So.....he can have God in his life, and someone else doesn't have to at all!......8>)
So his post isn't invalidated, it just doesn't apply in your life.
Maybe.......it could be agreed that it doesn't apply as it pertains to gay rights, either!
Just sayin'...... |
If I understand you correctly Jeb, I think that's essentially what I've been trying to say from the beginning. What I say (or what the church says) shouldn't apply to gays wanting to get married outside of the church, and what the government says about gay marriage shouldn't apply to marriage within the church.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 13:28:43. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:33:08 PM · #3257 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Yes, but the Bible cannot claim the institution of marriage as theirs simply because they say so.
Marriage was a civil institution before the Bible.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ah, but he lives here in America, where religious freedom is a right.
So.....he can have God in his life, and someone else doesn't have to at all!......8>)
So his post isn't invalidated, it just doesn't apply in your life.
Maybe.......it could be agreed that it doesn't apply as it pertains to gay rights, either!
Just sayin'...... |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If I understand you correctly Jeb, I think that's essentially what I've been trying to say from the beginning. What I say (or what the church says) shouldn't apply to gays wanting to get married outside of the church, and what the government says about gay marriage shouldn't apply to marriage within the church. |
That's really the issue in a nutshell.
Two people who want to make the commitment of marriage to each other should be able to.....regardless of their gender, religious beliefs, or others' opinions on the matter.
To me, that seems like a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:40:30 PM · #3258 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Yes, but the Bible cannot claim the institution of marriage as theirs simply because they say so.
Marriage was a civil institution before the Bible. |
All I'm saying is that the church should have the right to do whatever it wants with marriage within the church. A lot of people are just afraid that if the government allows gay marriage, then gay marriage will start happening in the church too. Somebody said in an earlier post that fear is the source of discrimination. Well, there's your fear. If the government assured the various religions (not just Christianity) that it will not impose it's gay marriage laws on religions I think that would help alleviate the fear.
I should add that part of this fear stems from what's happened in Europe. Pastors have been arrested and fined in some European countries for doing their job and preaching from the Bible, which happens to say that homosexuality is wrong. I think American Christians are just afraid that the gay marriage laws will somehow override the separation of church and state and the right that Americans have to worship freely in the way they deem best.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 13:44:39. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:48:06 PM · #3259 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Yes, but the Bible cannot claim the institution of marriage as theirs simply because they say so.
Marriage was a civil institution before the Bible. |
All I'm saying is that the church should have the right to do whatever it wants with marriage within the church. A lot of people are just afraid that if the government allows gay marriage, then gay marriage will start happening in the church too. Somebody said in an earlier post that fear is the source of discrimination. Well, there's your fear. If the government assured the various religions (not just Christianity) that it will not impose it's gay marriage laws on religions I think that would help alleviate the fear. |
This is already part of the majority (if not all) of the same-sex marriage proposals. Canada has had same-sex marriage for a few years now, country wide, and it's simply not an issue with churches here. It's not an issue, period. It's a non-issue. It's invisible. It's now a part of life.
The same would be true in the U.S. as well, if people would but let it. However, you have one of the most litigious countries on the face of the planet, and if there is money to be made for lawyers, by gum, they're going to try and make it. If you want to blame fear on anything, blame it on lawyers and people that want a quick buck from lawsuits. That's where the real problem is. That's why you have such a fear of people suing churches for not 'allowing' same-sex marriages, because your society has created a lawsuit-happy atmosphere where every tiny little problem is suddenly something to make money off of.
The fact is, there is nothing to fear from same-sex marriage, so people invent fears to fill the void. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:50:32 PM · #3260 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I'm saying is that the church should have the right to do whatever it wants with marriage within the church. A lot of people are just afraid that if the government allows gay marriage, then gay marriage will start happening in the church too. Somebody said in an earlier post that fear is the source of discrimination. Well, there's your fear. If the government assured the various religions (not just Christianity) that it will not impose it's gay marriage laws on religions I think that would help alleviate the fear.
I should add that part of this fear stems from what's happened in Europe. Pastors have been arrested and fined in some European countries for doing their job and preaching from the Bible, which happens to say that homosexuality is wrong. I think American Christians are just afraid that the gay marriage laws will somehow override the separation of church and state and the right that Americans have to worship freely in the way they deem best. |
Hmm.....reasoned, rational.....
What do we do with this guy?......8>)
Have we been arguing different sides of the same point?
Your synopsis above seems like all equal rights folks are asking.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:53:05 PM · #3261 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
All I'm saying is that the church should have the right to do whatever it wants with marriage within the church. A lot of people are just afraid that if the government allows gay marriage, then gay marriage will start happening in the church too. Somebody said in an earlier post that fear is the source of discrimination. Well, there's your fear. If the government assured the various religions (not just Christianity) that it will not impose it's gay marriage laws on religions I think that would help alleviate the fear. |
Well, then you will be happy to know that none of the pro-gay marriage law proposed or contemplated would force any religious institution to conduct gay marriages when they do not want to. Indeed, this would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment's protection on the freedom of worship. If Adam and Steve want to get married and your church is not okay with conducting the marriage, the church will not have to conduct the marriage and Adam and Steve will not be able to force the church to do so.
If the church down the road doesn't have a problem with Adam and Steve getting hitched, however, then opening the law up to include same-sex couples would allow that church to follow its own faith as it sees fit.
Those opposed to gay marriage are not arguing against an infringement of their religious or secular rights - because allowing someone else to voluntarily enter into, support or conduct same-sex marriages in no way infringes on the religious or secular right of those outside of the transaction - instead they are arguing that their own religious viewpoints should trump the religious and secular viewpoints of those outside their particular faith. It is wrong-headed, arrogant and will prove ultimately futile.
Edit to add: Any lawsuit that tried to force a religious institution to conduct ceremonies that the institution felt were in conflict with their religious doctrines would be short-lived and would likely be seen as so frivolous as to result in any litigation costs being forced back on the party stupid enough to bring the suit in the first place.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 13:56:57. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 01:59:49 PM · #3262 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Genesis 2:18 says, "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."" |
Genesis is hardly a good source for factual claims. How do we know God said anything at all, much less a direct quote? Just look at the line that follows yours: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Now scroll back to Genesis 1:21ΓΆ€” "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." He made animals and birds twice (three times if you count Genesis 1:24-26)? Then there's creating plants before sunlight existed, fruit before there were any animals to transport them, etc. These are elementary school chronology problems... in a series of events that supposedly took place before anyone existed to record them.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The government should be allowed to do what it wants within the nation apart from religion, and the church should be allowed to do what it wants within the church apart from the government... Discrimination against gays is synonymous with denial of rights, at least that is true regarding how we've been using the terms. |
Generally agreed.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Where? Sex, perhaps, but not necessarily marriage. That definition wasn't added until the 1500's.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So here's my question: If a non-Christian gay person wants to have a gay marriage in the church and the church leaders refuse to allow it, can that be considered discrimination and denial of rights when the church never allows that as a right in the first place? |
As already pointed out several times, this is the same as asking if a Catholic church can be sued for refusing to perform a Jewish marriage, and equally silly. Neither group would seek out such a hostile venue in the first place. Could a black man sue the KKK for refusing him membership? Duh. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 02:15:18 PM · #3263 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Genesis is hardly a good source for factual claims. How do we know God said anything at all, much less a direct quote? Just look at the line that follows yours: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Now scroll back to Genesis 1:21ΓΆ€” "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." He made animals and birds twice (three times if you count Genesis 1:24-26)? Then there's creating plants before sunlight existed, fruit before there were any animals to transport them, etc. These are elementary school chronology problems... in a series of events that supposedly took place before anyone existed to record them. |
I'm not going to respond to that because if I do I'm going to get criticized for getting off track again. If you really want to know then PM me.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Where? Sex, perhaps, but not necessarily marriage. That definition wasn't added until the 1500's. |
Okay, I'll clarify... The church declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman based on the teachings of the Bible.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 14:15:51. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 02:21:47 PM · #3264 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Now, the Bible declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Where? Sex, perhaps, but not necessarily marriage. That definition wasn't added until the 1500's. |
Okay, I'll clarify... The church declares that marriage is a union between a man and a woman based on the teachings of the Bible. |
Don't take everything Shannon says at face value. We do have Genesis 2:24: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
The Torah also has rules governing marriage.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 14:27:43. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 02:35:42 PM · #3265 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't take everything Shannon says at face value. We do have Genesis 2:24: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. |
Well, there are dozens of places in the Bible that talk about marriage being between husband and wife, and not one that says husband and husband or wife and wife. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 02:40:59 PM · #3266 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't take everything Shannon says at face value. We do have Genesis 2:24: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. |
Well, there are dozens of places in the Bible that talk about marriage being between husband and wife, and not one that says husband and husband or wife and wife. |
Well, I'm just saying the idea that Judeo-Christianity hadn't decided that marriage was between man and woman until the 1500s is pretty silly. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 02:47:59 PM · #3267 |
johnny - please respond to the point made by me and others below that the allowance of gay marriage rights will in no way interfere with your church's right to not conduct or acknowledge gay marriages. if your primary objection is that you don't want churches to be forced to act contrary to its beliefs within the confines of the church, and there is no such threat, then you should be willing to allow same-sex couples to get married within the secular and religious institutions that are ready and willing . . . correct?
If not, what is your objection - beyond "I don't agree with it."?
There are lots of activities and things that I don't agree with, but it is not my right to prevent people from engaging in those activities unless they infringe upon my own rights or cause harm to others. In other words, someone being a member of the Republican Party may be personally offensive to me as the slavering, socialist Democrat that I am, but I don't have any right to prevent that person from joining the Republican Party or preventing meetings of the Federalist Society. ;) |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 03:08:07 PM · #3268 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm just saying the idea that Judeo-Christianity hadn't decided that marriage was between man and woman until the 1500s is pretty silly. |
Let me be the first to completely cede this argument - is traditional and historic Judeo-Christian belief, practice and dogma hostile to same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality in general? Absolutely!!
Now let me add - so what?? There are lots of beliefs, practices and dogma that are supported and/or openly advocated in traditional and historic christianity that have been discarded or have been modified and/or updated so as not to conflict with modern (and I would argue, superior) moral practice and belief - slavery; genocide; tribal bigotry; effective legal ownership of women by men (fathers or subsequent husbands), to name a few, are all no longer considered acceptable practices (for the most part), even though the Bible and christian religious tradition either explicitly endorse, or were used in support of, those practices at one time. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 03:57:08 PM · #3269 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't take everything Shannon says at face value. |
Lovely debating tactic, Doc.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We do have Genesis 2:24: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. |
Well, there are dozens of places in the Bible that talk about marriage being between husband and wife, and not one that says husband and husband or wife and wife. |
There are hundreds of places in the Bible that talk about men and women in general. Not one mentions hermaphroditic or sexually ambiguous people, although they certainly existed then as they do today. So what? It's common practice to generalize typical situations, even if there are acceptable exceptions and unmentioned norms. The Declaration of Independence declares in its opening line that "all men are created equal." Does this mean that women are unequal or don't exist? Bible does NOT specifically outlaw gay marriage anywhere. Certain sex-related practices are apparently prohibited, including many in heterosexual relationships that wouldn't raise an eyebrow today. The Bible is notably hostile to interracial and (especially) interfaith marriages, too, but we don't ban such unions on those grounds.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm just saying the idea that Judeo-Christianity hadn't decided that marriage was between man and woman until the 1500s is pretty silly. |
If they had, then such a declaration obviously wouldn't have been necessary in the 1500's. That same meeting also decreed that members of the clergy were expected to remain celibate, and multiple wives or concubines were frowned upon (all fair game until then). Though uncommon, gay marriages were hardly unheard of in early Christian civilizations. Pope Julius III may have been gay.
Message edited by author 2009-12-22 15:59:45. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:06:16 PM · #3270 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
johnny - please respond to the point made by me and others below that the allowance of gay marriage rights will in no way interfere with your church's right to not conduct or acknowledge gay marriages. if your primary objection is that you don't want churches to be forced to act contrary to its beliefs within the confines of the church, and there is no such threat, then you should be willing to allow same-sex couples to get married within the secular and religious institutions that are ready and willing . . . correct? |
Once again ...
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps we should get back to  johnnyphoto's original point, with which I mostly agree:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm a Christian, and I don't have anything against homosexuals. In my opinion Christian marriage is different from the legal social contractual marriage that is recognized by the government. I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage. |
Advocates of "gay marriage" are only asking for equal rights/recognition under the (secular) law by the government(s) -- I don't think any of them are asking any religion to change its own values or interpretation of any relationship. Since the prohibition of same-sex marriage can only be justified by invoking the religious teachings of certain sects, it seems rather clear to me that such laws violate the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to equal protection/treatment under the law conferred under the Fourteenth, which only refers to "citizens" and makes no reference as to gender. |
|
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:08:44 PM · #3271 |
| Those argument SP have been done over and over and over. I was just pointing out some silly stuff. There is no point, in my eyes, to continue to argue the same points again and again. I'll respond to the most egregious arguments, but otherwise it's a case of been there, done that on both sides. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:11:02 PM · #3272 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Pope Julius III may have been gay. |
titter... Sorry, I always find the juxtaposition of the word "gay" with historical figures funny. Alexander the Great was "gay", Michelangelo was "gay", Tchaikovsky was "gay"... lol! To me, it's like saying that Homer was a novelist, or Dante a sci-fi/fantasy writer. I wish they'd never come up with the word "gay". It's silly. Either that, or we all have to start calling each other gay, like, you're gay+5, johhny's gay-2, Mousie's gay+99 or something. But I digress! Quick, talk about gay marriage before I go ballistic on myself! |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:26:01 PM · #3273 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Pope Julius III may have been gay. |
titter... Sorry, I always find the juxtaposition of the word "gay" with historical figures funny. |
To clarify, Pope Julius III apparently preferred the sexual companionship of other men. |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:52:15 PM · #3274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Pope Julius III may have been gay. |
titter... Sorry, I always find the juxtaposition of the word "gay" with historical figures funny. |
To clarify, Pope Julius III apparently preferred the sexual companionship of other men. |
Heh... well, it's fine to call this pope gay (among other things). |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 04:55:46 PM · #3275 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Pope Julius III may have been gay. |
titter... Sorry, I always find the juxtaposition of the word "gay" with historical figures funny. Alexander the Great was "gay", Michelangelo was "gay", Tchaikovsky was "gay"... lol! To me, it's like saying that Homer was a novelist, or Dante a sci-fi/fantasy writer. I wish they'd never come up with the word "gay". It's silly. Either that, or we all have to start calling each other gay, like, you're gay+5, johhny's gay-2, Mousie's gay+99 or something. But I digress! Quick, talk about gay marriage before I go ballistic on myself! |
What's your score on the gay scale Louis? :-p |
|
