| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2004 06:54:52 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Maybe this will put things in perspective for everyone. I am a health care worker and one of my co-workers is a gay man who suddenly at age of 39 was found passed out on his living room floor unconscious. He was rushed to the nearest hospital in his area (not ours)where he was immediately put into the ICU. He was not in good shape and in a semi-unconscious state. His partner was not allowed into the ICU to visit because he was not "family." His co-workers managed to have him transfered to our hospital where his partner was happily allowed in to be with him.
The partner could only come to visit at night (after working hours) because he had just started a new job (accountant) which did not recognize "domestic partners" and would not give him any time off. Also the partner was still in the closet at work because of fear of losing his job so he could not state how devasting this was to him for fear of coming out and being fired.
Our friend and co-worker passed away and then the fun began of sorting out all of their domestic arrangements because legally the partner does not have a leg to stand on. Things are a mess and the partner is in jeopardy of losing his home and some of his belongings. We at the hospital are outraged and are trying to help him straighten things out.
Now I ask you how you would feel after 12 years with your mate and have this happen to you in a time of need. There is no religious answer to this dilemma. It is a legal issue which needs to be changed. We need to treat everyone as we would want to be treated regardless of religious beliefs. |
great post of a real life example, thanks. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 07:21:09 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Your "so many" is actually TWO, both by the same person. One of the rebuttals said "...why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right?" and the other said "Seriously, why should I trust that article? How is not trusting an unverified, potentially biased source intolerant? What am I not tolerating, specifically?"
Both of the "so many" rebuttals decried the SOURCE of the article, but neither rebutted the CONTENT of the article, which, admittedly, is more difficult. |
Way to go in completely ignoring the rebuttal that "correlation does not equal causation." The article goes to great lengths to describe the current (and historical) state of heterosexual marriage problems in Scandanavia and the fact that, while these problems were already occurring, gay marriage was legalized. It then makes the logical error that this *concurrent* event is to blame for (perhaps exacerbated is more fair) the *existing* issues with heterosexual marriage. The article does not give any facts why this *concurrent* event (and subsequent gay marriages) directly influences anything to do with straight marriage, but *infers* that it does because they occured at the same time. Rap music rose to it's current prominence during the same time period, but that doesn't mean that rap music is negatively effecting Scandanavian heterosexual marriage.
Multiple people have discussed this rebuttal.
Thanks for crediting me as the sole voice of dissent, but I beg to differ.
- Mousie
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 19:29:26. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 07:45:14 PM · #403 |
I had made my own rebuttal on the article but you didn't count it either among your two.
Like I already said, Quebec is experiencing the same problems with heterosexual marriage, but we didn't have gay people marrying until recently. There's many places in the world where this problem exists.
This statement on its own does not validate/invalidate the article, but, considering its written as an editorial, and is refecting an individual's opinion on the problem in Scandinavia, it should by no means be
"proof" as to what introducing gay marriages is going to do to our culture. Traditional marriage already has been experiencing a decline for many years.
But hey, maybe we should hear what the general populace in Scandinavia thinks about this instead of one person. I have some Scandanavian friends I can ask. I'm very interested in what they'll have to say...
(edited for spelling)
Originally posted by RonB:
Your "so many" is actually TWO, both by the same person. One of the rebuttals said "...why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right?" and the other said "Seriously, why should I trust that article? How is not trusting an unverified, potentially biased source intolerant? What am I not tolerating, specifically?"
Both of the "so many" rebuttals decried the SOURCE of the article, but neither rebutted the CONTENT of the article, which, admittedly, is more difficult. |
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 19:46:41. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 07:46:26 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Other then religion is there a valid argument against it?
All I've heard was:
It's just wrong
It'll ruin the sanctity of marrage
and religous reasons.
Not much of an argument for a constitutional ammendment... |
Then you didn't read this ( from a prior post ):
"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."
The full article ( The End of Marriage in Scandinavia ) is HERE
Mind you, I agree wholeheartedly that it's not much of an argument for a Constitutional Amendment. Heck, here in Florida the people voted to amend our state constitution to establish the proper treatment of pregnant sows. I didn't think that that was worthy of a constitutional amendment either. But the majority did, so it is.
Ron |
Scandanavia is not the US. What does and doesn't work there is no indication of what will and will not work here simply because it's two completely different populations. I dismiss that article as irrelevant. Even if it were relevant, it's one article written by one person from a very conservative point of view.
LasVegas has made a joke of marrage (elvis, drive thru's, and both) and marriage is not in shambles there. You need much better reasons.
Try looking for reasons with an open mind. There are none. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 09:54:57 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
You're welcome, Gaia. For what it's worth, my concern with the codification of those words is because those are the very words used by organizations like NAMBLA ( The North American Man/Boy Love Association ) to gain legal standing to support their position that "consensual" sexual relationships between men and (young) boys is OK. If you don't believe it, a visit to their web site will do wonders in raising your level of concern as well.
Ron |
LOL
that NAMBLA concept was created on southpark |
Nope. It was parodied on South Park. The organisation is very real. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 06:29:16 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
Originally posted by leaf:
if you are looking for oximorons.. i think that one is quite a fine one there. 'unreligiuosly moral place'... what is morality without religion... whatever i 'feel' is right? |
I am married. I do not need God to tell me it's OK. Keep state and church separate. Don't let the legal system interfere with the church's right to prohibit gay marriages in church and don't let the church (religion) interfere with the legal joining of a gay couple. Let people who love each other share their lives regardless of gender as is already done with race, religion or national origin.
I believe that nations must remain moral to ensure the future of this world. I just don't believe that the morality must be approved by God (or the interpretation of God's word by a multitude of faiths). |
drgsoell, you have encapsulated what I believe very well indeed.
Morality?
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right.
The practice of the moral duties; rectitude of life; conformity to the standard of right; virtue.
concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.
I resent the suggestion that those of us who do not believe in Christianity (whether we believe in an alternative religion or none at all) are unable to follow a strong moral code.
And, throughout the history of man, the majority opinion on what IS right and what IS wrong has transformed many many times in so many areas of life. "Good" is not something that is fixed for all time because humans are still learning and, as we learn, adjusting our moral doctrines/ codes/ laws.
PS Fluxn, your post rocked!
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 07:31:50 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by sylandrix:
I had made my own rebuttal on the article but you didn't count it either among your two. |
My apologies, David. You are quite correct. When I reviewed the earlier posts in preparation for posting my response to your earlier post, I failed to note your rebuttal to my earlier post because the lead-in quotation indicated that it was a response to a post by CHRISW123 who was respponding to my earlier post. In fact, you DID offer a rebuttal to the CONTENT, as well as the source. Again, my apologies for the oversight.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 11:11:43 AM · #408 |
Ron, if I am mistaking your point with respect to NAMBLA, please correct me, but are you saying that allowing gay marriage will morally and legally legitimize sexual relations between a boy and a man?
I have a hard time believing that is what you mean because heterosexual marriage has no bearing on whether its morally or legally permissible for a man and a girl or a woman and a boy to have sex or get married to one another. It seems like a bit of smoke and mirrors to bring up an association that many people, gay and straight alike, find morally reprehensible and then link that casually to the issue of whether same sex unions ought to be legal.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 12:37:06 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Ron, if I am mistaking your point with respect to NAMBLA, please correct me, but are you saying that allowing gay marriage will morally and legally legitimize sexual relations between a boy and a man?
I have a hard time believing that is what you mean because heterosexual marriage has no bearing on whether its morally or legally permissible for a man and a girl or a woman and a boy to have sex or get married to one another. It seems like a bit of smoke and mirrors to bring up an association that many people, gay and straight alike, find morally reprehensible and then link that casually to the issue of whether same sex unions ought to be legal. |
Well, first of all, heterosexual marriage does, indeed, have a bearing on whether its morally or legally permissible for a man and a girl or a woman and a boy to have sex. In some states the age of consent is 14. So, a 21 year old man can legally marry a 14 year old girl. If he then has sex with her, that's perfectly OK from a legal perspective. BUT, if he is NOT married to her, it's called statutory rape regardless of whether she consents or not. And for that, he can go to jail for a long, long time.
But to your point of, What did I mean? What I mean is that the wording of statutes needs to be very carefully crafted to prevent mis-use by those who would exploit every loophole available to them. It doesn't matter whether those statutes deal with income taxes or marriage. Those who would pervert the law will argue the "letter of the law" with complete disregard to the "intent of the law". NAMBLA is just one of the organizations that would support getting the terms "consensual" and "age of consent" into statutes defining the requirements under which the state must recognize the right of two individuals to "marry", because that would enable men to marry boys at the age of just 14 in some states ( i.e. South Carolina, Missouri, Iowa ).
I am not arguing the gay-marriage issue pro or con, just trying to enlighten folks that there may be unseen ramifications if statutes legalizing same-sex unions are not crafted carefully. Some people are already arguing that legalizing same-sex unions will result in people suing to marry their dogs. While that seems ludicrous, it "could" be a sound legal standing if the statutes are not worded in such a way as to preclude it.
Now, frankly, I don't trust most legislators at either the state or federal level to fully consider all of the ramifications of the legislation they propose and enact. That's why I intend to study the actual wording of proposed legislation at length before I contact those who represent me in the state and/or federal congress.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 12:58:03 PM · #410 |
None of that has anything to do with the statements "Your second coming is drooling in a staight jacket somewhere" . |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 12:59:18 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
By the way, it occurs to me to remind everyone that the Bible WAS NOT WRITTEN in English, and we have only the "word" of about 400 generations of translators and transcribers that the majority is actually THE Word of God as delivered directly to the divinely possessed. |
For me the Bible is the truth, so keeping this in mind, God said on a number of occasions that He would never let the true meaning of His words be distorted.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 13:06:04. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 01:01:00 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Other then religion is there a valid argument against it?
All I've heard was:
It's just wrong
It'll ruin the sanctity of marrage
and religous reasons.
Not much of an argument for a constitutional ammendment... |
I know what you're saying, the initial thread post was asking why it's such a big deal, so that's basically why so many 'religious' posts. To the 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated. No one has to like it, but everyone was asked their opinions and reasoning why..and that's the reasoning why. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 01:07:27 PM · #413 |
Ron,
That's a reasoned approach to looking at how the matter is to be legislated, and the wording of any statute should be closely scrutinized by any populace, however we haven't even gotten to that stage yet. Same sex unions are allowed in Canada, but in the US there certainly is no consensus on whether it ought to be legally recognized so there is no statute whose wording we can examine. You raise an interesting issue, but we haven't come to that bridge yet. We're still debating whether to start drafting legislation, not the legislation itself.
It is no objection the idea of same sex marriage to say that a law allowing it could be poorly worded and thus lead to the exploitation of children. If the current laws respecting the age of consent to marriage are allowing the exploitation of children, then efforts should be made to change those laws because they exist regardless of whether same sex marriage is allowed. Its a red herring to attach that thought to the same sex marriage debate. They are two separate issues completely.
The people who argue that allowing same sex marriage will allow people to marry their dogs are arguing the most illogical and irrational point. A dog is not a person. A tree is not a person, thus there is no legal status accorded those entities. They cannot enter into any legal contract, and that is what a marriage in the eyes of the law: a legal contract between two natural persons (not corporations which are legal people). No matter how poorly worded a statute it respecting same sex marriage, it is impossible for it to allow people to marry their dogs. I think its insulting and degrading to humanity for anyone to even think that would be a result of legally recognizing same sex unions.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 01:45:27 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
By the way, it occurs to me to remind everyone that the Bible WAS NOT WRITTEN in English, and we have only the "word" of about 400 generations of translators and transcribers that the majority is actually THE Word of God as delivered directly to the divinely possessed. |
For me the Bible is the truth, so keeping this in mind, God said on a number of occasions that He would never let the true meaning of His words be distorted. |
You mean the translations that you read said that the translators did a good job - and that in fact God was doing the proof reading, so that they must be wonderful translators ? Don't you see some potential conflict of interest there ?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 01:58:27 PM · #415 |
Gordon,
I really don't understand what you just wrote. Also, Goldberry's last statment is based on pure Faith, which may not seem logical when trying to translate it into science, math, etc.
I can see how both GeneralE and GoldBerry statements can be true to them based on their faiths. Of course, I believe that God is so far above us and has given us free will, that there is no way for bible translators to be watched over so closely as to ensure no mistakes. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:00:21 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
By the way, it occurs to me to remind everyone that the Bible WAS NOT WRITTEN in English, and we have only the "word" of about 400 generations of translators and transcribers that the majority is actually THE Word of God as delivered directly to the divinely possessed. |
For me the Bible is the truth, so keeping this in mind, God said on a number of occasions that He would never let the true meaning of His words be distorted. |
You mean the translations that you read said that the translators did a good job - and that in fact God was doing the proof reading, so that they must be wonderful translators ? Don't you see some potential conflict of interest there ? |
I was just stating what it says....I see your point, obviously. And as far as translations, part of my family is greek, and most of the original transcripts being written in greek, my friend Peter was in the Middle East and able to read some scripts considered to be 'originals' he said the text was very close to how it is represented now. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure very few modern day Christians are blind to what the Vatican and RC's have done to alter the order and publication of certain books of the Bible. You do have to be diligent when selecting a copy for your own studies. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:04:29 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Gaia:
Gordon,
I really don't understand what you just wrote. |
I'm just saying that basing a belief on the quality of a translation on something within the translation that says the translation is a good one, is probably not the best foundation to place a belief upon.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:06:08 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
[...]read some scripts considered to be 'originals' he said the text was very close to how it is represented now. |
Well that's good. That cuts out any potential bias that the translators might have put in. Now all that is at issue is that you have someone writing a document that is saying that what they are writing is the word of God. Oh, and that you can believe what I'm writing, because God said so.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:07:00 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gaia:
Gordon,
I really don't understand what you just wrote. |
I'm just saying that basing a belief on the quality of a translation on something within the translation that says the translation is a good one, is probably not the best foundation to place a belief upon. |
LOL *scratches head* I do understand what you're saying :-) but it's funny! |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:08:54 PM · #420 |
Lol, Thanks, now I get it! Good logic!
BTW: Thanks to everyone on this site- I'm learning a lot about photography, and hope to enter a challenge soon! I hope my entries get as much feedback as my posts in this rant forum.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:19:01 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
[...]read some scripts considered to be 'originals' he said the text was very close to how it is represented now. |
Well that's good. That cuts out any potential bias that the translators might have put in. Now all that is at issue is that you have someone writing a document that is saying that what they are writing is the word of God. Oh, and that you can believe what I'm writing, because God said so. |
Okay so without Faith, the word of God will never be fully revealed to you through scripture , if your heart is closed and cold you won't 'get it'. That's what God said, and of course, He said it in the Bible therefore I don't expect you to believe that...and that's fine. What I do want you to understand is that through the eyes of a Christian, reading the Bible is a direct way for God to speak to us and point us in the right direction in life. God can direct you to what page and what scripture to read which will help you in life. Being lead by God is truly amazing, it's not blind by any means. That's not a sermon or an attempt at conversion, just a statement of belief and life, it makes my eyes light up to think of all that God has brought into my life. 'Tis a wonderful thing.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 14:19:56. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:48:42 PM · #422 |
Pure placebo effect.
it's really not that different from saying 'i believe that the is filling my heart with happiness', and then getting a warm fuzzy for that reason.
Pure self-delusion.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:54:19 PM · #423 |
It amazes me to no end that most of the people who ridicule those who express faith in what the Bible says, have no problem placing their faith what the scientists say. As if scientists were more credible than the scriptures.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:57:40 PM · #424 |
scientific results: you can see them. you can repeat them.
although our human perceptions may be flawed, those thing seem more 'real' than something that might just be a fantasy book
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 02:58:23 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It amazes me to no end that most of the people who ridicule those who express faith in what the Bible says, have no problem placing their faith what the scientists say. As if scientists were more credible than the scriptures. |
A good scientist will, by definition, prove his work. |
|
