If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
Gay marriage
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
counterpoints:
1. red herring. you're talking about activities involving harm. where is the harm? more accurate: some people love broccoli. some people hate broccoli. the people who hate broccoli want to pass a law banning people from eating broccoli, because anyone who likes broccoli is a priori a deviant, because o
obviously broccoli is a horrid, horrid substance, since they hate it.
2. if the state must sanction the bond of two people, which it must simply because of our tax laws etc, then it should have no bearing what gender the two parties are, since that is irrelevant to the sanction. the govt is here to keep the peace. no violation of the peace is created by recognizing two people as bonded, whether male+female, male+male, or female+female. so, in a nutshell, the govt should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. ALL such sanctions should be for civil unions, because the govt is in no position to sanction love.
3. if a priest marries two people of the same gender, then apparently there is someone of the cloth who believes that there is no harm in same sex marriage, and that it does not conflict with their faith. marriage is cross cultural, and cross religion as well. primitive/aboriginal people practice marriage. many primitive cultures recognize the fact of homosexuality as a normal variation in human sexuality. hopefully, more 'sophisticated' cultures are capable of the same understanding and tolerance. the notion that marriage is here to help keep humanity going through procreation, well, it's a sweet, quaint idea. but like many ideas, it is desparately out of touch with human reality, at 6+ billion humans, and going strong. homosexuality predates western civilization. if we've managed to swell our ranks to six thousand million with all those fags around, then clearly, they aren't a danger to the survival of humanity.
bottom line: show me the harm.
1. red herring. you're talking about activities involving harm. where is the harm? more accurate: some people love broccoli. some people hate broccoli. the people who hate broccoli want to pass a law banning people from eating broccoli, because anyone who likes broccoli is a priori a deviant, because o
obviously broccoli is a horrid, horrid substance, since they hate it.
2. if the state must sanction the bond of two people, which it must simply because of our tax laws etc, then it should have no bearing what gender the two parties are, since that is irrelevant to the sanction. the govt is here to keep the peace. no violation of the peace is created by recognizing two people as bonded, whether male+female, male+male, or female+female. so, in a nutshell, the govt should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. ALL such sanctions should be for civil unions, because the govt is in no position to sanction love.
3. if a priest marries two people of the same gender, then apparently there is someone of the cloth who believes that there is no harm in same sex marriage, and that it does not conflict with their faith. marriage is cross cultural, and cross religion as well. primitive/aboriginal people practice marriage. many primitive cultures recognize the fact of homosexuality as a normal variation in human sexuality. hopefully, more 'sophisticated' cultures are capable of the same understanding and tolerance. the notion that marriage is here to help keep humanity going through procreation, well, it's a sweet, quaint idea. but like many ideas, it is desparately out of touch with human reality, at 6+ billion humans, and going strong. homosexuality predates western civilization. if we've managed to swell our ranks to six thousand million with all those fags around, then clearly, they aren't a danger to the survival of humanity.
bottom line: show me the harm.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
1. show me the harm to the institutions.
2. show me the harm in it being a marriage rather than a civil union.
3. show me the harm to our foundations.
'secular clergy'. now there's a mind-blower!
2. show me the harm in it being a marriage rather than a civil union.
3. show me the harm to our foundations.
'secular clergy'. now there's a mind-blower!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
i got this in email a while back. it's great. food for thought.
(edit - bolloxed up formatting, see next post!)
(edit - bolloxed up formatting, see next post!)
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
ick. bad formatting!
let's try again.
Top 12 reasons why gays shouldn't marry:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
let's try again.
Top 12 reasons why gays shouldn't marry:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
can you provide chapter and verse in the bible where it states that marriage is only a union between a man and a woman, and that same sex marriage is forbidden?
of course, the bible recommends death by stoning for cursing, that a woman is property of her husband, etc., so who knows how helpful it will be.
of course, the bible recommends death by stoning for cursing, that a woman is property of her husband, etc., so who knows how helpful it will be.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
but here's where all of this falls apart:
this is a secular nation. it is not a theocracy. in this pluralistic land, there are extreme conservative catholics; conservative catholics; catholics; methodists; southern baptists; baptists; liberal baptists; lutherans; seventh-day adventists; episcopalians; presbyterians; pentecostalists; nazarenes; and many others i've likely overlooked. but wait, there's more! in this land, there are also muslims; hindus; buddhists; sikhs; jews; rastafarians; jains; zoroastrians; shintoists; and a thousand more.
my point? all of these people are americans. this is not a christian nation, no matter how much some may protest it is. one of the reasons that one can get a "quickie" marriage is because the state apparently must sponsor/sanction marriage, no matter how committed to any given faith one is - or even if one is an atheist. in fact, the state will marry two atheists, no problem. so clearly, the religious/historical/traditional background of marriage is irrelevant to the state sponsored nature of marriage. since the state is willing to marry anyone, then it really should be willing to marry *anyone*. civil union? that'd be fine - you give up your marriage license issued by the state, i'll give up mine, and we can both be issued civil union certificates by the state. that's the only fair way to go about it.
now, marriage as sponsored by 'the church' - well, that can remain what it always has, a spiritual matter, where two people go through a ceremony with symbolic meaning, to consecrate their love and committment. but by going through that, you do NOT get a certificate from the state saying 'this is acceptable' - because it's not the state's business.
and if a church, with congregants in communion, chooses to recognize the union of two people of the same sex, and those people within their communion recognize that as acceptable to the faith (whichever of the dozens above are listed), then that is what it is - the 'law' as put forth by the bible is one of choice - you either accept it and believe it, or you don't. whether or not you accept it is a matter of choice. and if one accepts it, then that is a matter between god and that person, not something that other people can say is 'real' or not. so if a million liberal baptists believe that consecrating the union of two people of the same sex is acceptable, then it is acceptable to them, and if other branches of christianity disagree, well then they can disagree - much as people within a given branch can disagree, like many devout catholics who practice birth control. if someone else says 'you aren't a true christian because you don't adhere to conservative catholic ideology' - well then, that's fine. they can disagree.
i've rambled far too long. i return to the core of my original argument: who is harmed by the union of two people of the same sex? how are *you* harmed, any more so than you are harmed by the mere existence of The Jerry Springer Show? that something exists that one doesn't like does not cause harm. except by choice.
:eek:
this is a secular nation. it is not a theocracy. in this pluralistic land, there are extreme conservative catholics; conservative catholics; catholics; methodists; southern baptists; baptists; liberal baptists; lutherans; seventh-day adventists; episcopalians; presbyterians; pentecostalists; nazarenes; and many others i've likely overlooked. but wait, there's more! in this land, there are also muslims; hindus; buddhists; sikhs; jews; rastafarians; jains; zoroastrians; shintoists; and a thousand more.
my point? all of these people are americans. this is not a christian nation, no matter how much some may protest it is. one of the reasons that one can get a "quickie" marriage is because the state apparently must sponsor/sanction marriage, no matter how committed to any given faith one is - or even if one is an atheist. in fact, the state will marry two atheists, no problem. so clearly, the religious/historical/traditional background of marriage is irrelevant to the state sponsored nature of marriage. since the state is willing to marry anyone, then it really should be willing to marry *anyone*. civil union? that'd be fine - you give up your marriage license issued by the state, i'll give up mine, and we can both be issued civil union certificates by the state. that's the only fair way to go about it.
now, marriage as sponsored by 'the church' - well, that can remain what it always has, a spiritual matter, where two people go through a ceremony with symbolic meaning, to consecrate their love and committment. but by going through that, you do NOT get a certificate from the state saying 'this is acceptable' - because it's not the state's business.
and if a church, with congregants in communion, chooses to recognize the union of two people of the same sex, and those people within their communion recognize that as acceptable to the faith (whichever of the dozens above are listed), then that is what it is - the 'law' as put forth by the bible is one of choice - you either accept it and believe it, or you don't. whether or not you accept it is a matter of choice. and if one accepts it, then that is a matter between god and that person, not something that other people can say is 'real' or not. so if a million liberal baptists believe that consecrating the union of two people of the same sex is acceptable, then it is acceptable to them, and if other branches of christianity disagree, well then they can disagree - much as people within a given branch can disagree, like many devout catholics who practice birth control. if someone else says 'you aren't a true christian because you don't adhere to conservative catholic ideology' - well then, that's fine. they can disagree.
i've rambled far too long. i return to the core of my original argument: who is harmed by the union of two people of the same sex? how are *you* harmed, any more so than you are harmed by the mere existence of The Jerry Springer Show? that something exists that one doesn't like does not cause harm. except by choice.
:eek:
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
Robert H. Bork wrote in his article "The Necessary Amendment" in the August/September 2004 issue of First Things
Quote:
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangments that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: "Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter"
That sums it up for me. Boy, is this a hot topic!
Tombstone (currently putting gloves on to keep fingers from burning.)
Quote:
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangments that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: "Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter"
That sums it up for me. Boy, is this a hot topic!
Tombstone (currently putting gloves on to keep fingers from burning.)
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
"You can find many articles and publications that state that their goal is not personally to be married, nor to achieve domestic equality with heterosexuals, nor even to attain social respectability, but rather to empty the institution of marriage of its meaning. "
well, you can find articles and publication covering pretty much any stance you want, good or bad. i certainly don't agree with the above stance. on the other hand, i return back to one of the first things i mentioned in this thread - the first same-sex couple married in san francisco. together fifty years (rather than 55 hours, hi britney!). 79 and 83 years old, respectively.
if anything, that adds to the meaning of marriage. a committed couple finally able to consecrate vows, after FIFTY years together. what on earth is wrong with that, i ask. who are they harming, i ask.
the 'boy and his dog' argument has already been covered in the '12 reasons' list i posted. red herring.
this still boils down to the two competing establishments: church and state.
there is marriage by church, and marriage by state. the former is a matter of faith, and one decided by conscience. the latter is a matter of forms and paperwork, which in and of themselves consecrate nothing. again - britney spears got married for 55 hours. was that a holy thing? of course not. it was a matter of filling in forms with names and addresses and signing them. that's not marriage. and the state should not call it marriage. it is a civil union. as is my marriage, as recognized by the state. as is yours.
i'd be perfectly happy if the state ceased issuing marriage licenses altogether, as would be the right thing to do. if you want same-sex couples to live with 'civil union' documents, then you can too - since the legal aspect is immaterial to the religious aspect of it.
well, you can find articles and publication covering pretty much any stance you want, good or bad. i certainly don't agree with the above stance. on the other hand, i return back to one of the first things i mentioned in this thread - the first same-sex couple married in san francisco. together fifty years (rather than 55 hours, hi britney!). 79 and 83 years old, respectively.
if anything, that adds to the meaning of marriage. a committed couple finally able to consecrate vows, after FIFTY years together. what on earth is wrong with that, i ask. who are they harming, i ask.
the 'boy and his dog' argument has already been covered in the '12 reasons' list i posted. red herring.
this still boils down to the two competing establishments: church and state.
there is marriage by church, and marriage by state. the former is a matter of faith, and one decided by conscience. the latter is a matter of forms and paperwork, which in and of themselves consecrate nothing. again - britney spears got married for 55 hours. was that a holy thing? of course not. it was a matter of filling in forms with names and addresses and signing them. that's not marriage. and the state should not call it marriage. it is a civil union. as is my marriage, as recognized by the state. as is yours.
i'd be perfectly happy if the state ceased issuing marriage licenses altogether, as would be the right thing to do. if you want same-sex couples to live with 'civil union' documents, then you can too - since the legal aspect is immaterial to the religious aspect of it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote:
the 'boy and his dog' argument has already been covered in the '12 reasons' list i posted. red herring.
Just as absurd as this topic would have been back in 1972. Same sex marriage? Never! That's ridiculous! Red herring!
The nose of the camel is already in the tent.
the 'boy and his dog' argument has already been covered in the '12 reasons' list i posted. red herring.
Just as absurd as this topic would have been back in 1972. Same sex marriage? Never! That's ridiculous! Red herring!
The nose of the camel is already in the tent.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Gay marriage
plazul wrote:
The argument that gay marriage will destroy the instituiton of marriage is another transparent straw man argument designed to disguise prejudice and hate. Right wing conservatives are exploiting homophobic hate and the fears and prejudices of bigoted Americans who might otherwise not have much in common politically.
You've said a lot in your last post. Too much for me to respond to right now. I do disagree with your contention that its all disguised as prejudice and hate. Are there people who are filled with prejudice and hate? You bet! Both sides have goodly amounts of these characters.
I agree with Chris' posts that some institutions are important. Definitions have already been set. Traditions have been in place far longer than the 1970's, 80's, or 90's.
You just shouldn't dilute the meaning of certain important things. Let's use an example: (This is a conceptual metaphor.)
When you were a kid, didn't getting a Trophy mean something big? It sure did for me! You had to be the champion. Sure, if you got second place, you got a smaller one. Third place got a ribbon. When people saw a trophy in your bedroom, they knew it was special. It meant something. Not everyone got a trophy! You belonged to a special group. (People now say this is prejudiced, biased, and just not fair.)
Let's fast forward to 2004. Let's use Little League as an example. The policy has been for the last decade to give ALL the children a tropy. Doesn't matter if they won any games. Doesn't matter if their team was in last place. Inclusion! Self-asteem! Feeling a part of the team! You can't discriminate! They tried their hardest! Poor Billy! You know what? Everyone has a trophy. They don't mean anything anymore. My kids have dozens and dozens of them. They have absolutely no meaning.
The Trophy concept was changed due to Chris' term of: "fads and whims" of society at the time to be more "fair" and non-discriminatory.
It destroyed the traditional meaning.
The argument that gay marriage will destroy the instituiton of marriage is another transparent straw man argument designed to disguise prejudice and hate. Right wing conservatives are exploiting homophobic hate and the fears and prejudices of bigoted Americans who might otherwise not have much in common politically.
You've said a lot in your last post. Too much for me to respond to right now. I do disagree with your contention that its all disguised as prejudice and hate. Are there people who are filled with prejudice and hate? You bet! Both sides have goodly amounts of these characters.
I agree with Chris' posts that some institutions are important. Definitions have already been set. Traditions have been in place far longer than the 1970's, 80's, or 90's.
You just shouldn't dilute the meaning of certain important things. Let's use an example: (This is a conceptual metaphor.)
When you were a kid, didn't getting a Trophy mean something big? It sure did for me! You had to be the champion. Sure, if you got second place, you got a smaller one. Third place got a ribbon. When people saw a trophy in your bedroom, they knew it was special. It meant something. Not everyone got a trophy! You belonged to a special group. (People now say this is prejudiced, biased, and just not fair.)
Let's fast forward to 2004. Let's use Little League as an example. The policy has been for the last decade to give ALL the children a tropy. Doesn't matter if they won any games. Doesn't matter if their team was in last place. Inclusion! Self-asteem! Feeling a part of the team! You can't discriminate! They tried their hardest! Poor Billy! You know what? Everyone has a trophy. They don't mean anything anymore. My kids have dozens and dozens of them. They have absolutely no meaning.
The Trophy concept was changed due to Chris' term of: "fads and whims" of society at the time to be more "fair" and non-discriminatory.
It destroyed the traditional meaning.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Gay marriage
plazul wrote: Remember that marriage is about more than just the institution. It's also about a whole lot of government and private sector benefits that gay couple can't receive.
That's why I support Civil Unions.
I really don't get the trophy analogy. Do you really feel that the value of your marriage would be diminished if gay people could be legally marrried? I can understand (sort of) if you have a religious objection but you shouldn't be able to impose your sectarian beliefs on the government though that's what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Yes, this is correct. You know, you can't get the benefits of having Child Tax Credits without children, can you? Not everyone can join every tax advantaged group.
I encourage you to keep an open mind and to get acquainted with some gay and lesbian people. There are promiscuous and vulgar people of both sexual orientations but you'll find that most gays and lesbians are not craven sex addicts and that they have moral values just like yours and aspirations just like yours.
Since you don't know my background - here's a quick snippet.
I am confident that I know more and have more gay friends than the average Joe. I was born and raised next to San Francisco. I spent over 20 years working in San Francisco. Many jobs predominantly held by gay and lesbian folks. I had and have many gay friends. Some of my friends died during the 1980's and early 1990's due to AIDS. A horrible situation. Lots of understanding found here. I don't argue at all with the contention that many of them were born this way.
Enough said on that. My point is: I agree with the others on this thread that marriage is a traditional institution. And by traditional, I mean historic tradition.
That's why I support Civil Unions.
I really don't get the trophy analogy. Do you really feel that the value of your marriage would be diminished if gay people could be legally marrried? I can understand (sort of) if you have a religious objection but you shouldn't be able to impose your sectarian beliefs on the government though that's what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Yes, this is correct. You know, you can't get the benefits of having Child Tax Credits without children, can you? Not everyone can join every tax advantaged group.
I encourage you to keep an open mind and to get acquainted with some gay and lesbian people. There are promiscuous and vulgar people of both sexual orientations but you'll find that most gays and lesbians are not craven sex addicts and that they have moral values just like yours and aspirations just like yours.
Since you don't know my background - here's a quick snippet.
I am confident that I know more and have more gay friends than the average Joe. I was born and raised next to San Francisco. I spent over 20 years working in San Francisco. Many jobs predominantly held by gay and lesbian folks. I had and have many gay friends. Some of my friends died during the 1980's and early 1990's due to AIDS. A horrible situation. Lots of understanding found here. I don't argue at all with the contention that many of them were born this way.
Enough said on that. My point is: I agree with the others on this thread that marriage is a traditional institution. And by traditional, I mean historic tradition.
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
i'm still waiting for an explanation of what harm is caused by allowing gays to marry. actual harm. harm to you or to me. harm to the social order.
i'm all in favor of civil unions - but only if that's what is granted to male/female unions as well, rather than a legal certificate from the state saying they are 'married'. civil union is good enough for everyone. it's not for the state to say 'this union is acknowledged and granted a legal status of married, but this union is, well, uh, equal, but we aren't going to acknowledge it in the same way'.
marriage is a matter of church and religion and faith, not of the state. people can get just as 'married' as they used to be. but they get a civil union certificate, rather than a marriage certificate, from the state.
that's the only right way to go about it.
imnsho.
i'm all in favor of civil unions - but only if that's what is granted to male/female unions as well, rather than a legal certificate from the state saying they are 'married'. civil union is good enough for everyone. it's not for the state to say 'this union is acknowledged and granted a legal status of married, but this union is, well, uh, equal, but we aren't going to acknowledge it in the same way'.
marriage is a matter of church and religion and faith, not of the state. people can get just as 'married' as they used to be. but they get a civil union certificate, rather than a marriage certificate, from the state.
that's the only right way to go about it.
imnsho.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
I may be a wee bit old-fashioned in my ways (nothing to do with any religion) but I'm a Male Female combination. I don't see any other way. Gays are ok as long as they don't bother me. But Gay Marriages are taking it to far. And Gays bringing up children. I have to say No on both counts.
Gay marriage
I have no problem with gay couples raising children. I've seen too many straight couples who should have no right to have children. There's just some people in this world who should never give birth. Gay or straight, parenthood is a big responsiblity and should not be taken lightly. I just feel sorry that the kids are the ones who will probably pay for their parents sexual preference. Kids can be cruel and school will be horrible for them.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
To some here,I may be a wee bit old fashioned. But I have nothing against Gays period. But I am very much against Gay marriages and Gays (male or female) bringing up children.
Gay marriage
undefinedundefinedundefined
I am new here and I haven't had time to read the whole list on this thread. Being sight impaired makes reading difficult. However I must respond to Chris in #11. He displays a good knowledge of the literal reading of the Bible. Unfortunately as it was written using Midrash and metaphor it does not permit for an accurate reading or understanding.
First of all Gen. is not history but myth. In theology that has a specific meaning and does not demean the text whatsoever. A careful reading of 19 will clearly show that the anger of God was the way in which his visitors were accepted and not homosexuality. In fact Lot even offered to send out his daughters instead of the men for the pleasure of the crowd.
Lev. does state that homosexual behaviour is an "abomination" but that does not translate from the Hebrew into the word sin. A further reading of Lev. will show that it is also an abomination to eat shellfish and an abomination to wear clothing of two different fabrics. I think a new interpretation is definitely needed here.
Neither Romans nor Cor. specifically mention homosexuality as a sin.
In fact there is no where in the Bible where homosexuality is classed as a sin. It is only in the minds of the literalists/fundamentalists.
Homosexuality is not a choice it is part of the ontology of the being him/herself.
The Bible is Midrash and metaphor with kernals of history throughout. It is not a history book but a religious book and is to be treated as such. If we are not careful we can raise the Bible to the level of a "paper pope" and that is a form of idolatry.
Shalom
Ted :p
I am new here and I haven't had time to read the whole list on this thread. Being sight impaired makes reading difficult. However I must respond to Chris in #11. He displays a good knowledge of the literal reading of the Bible. Unfortunately as it was written using Midrash and metaphor it does not permit for an accurate reading or understanding.
First of all Gen. is not history but myth. In theology that has a specific meaning and does not demean the text whatsoever. A careful reading of 19 will clearly show that the anger of God was the way in which his visitors were accepted and not homosexuality. In fact Lot even offered to send out his daughters instead of the men for the pleasure of the crowd.
Lev. does state that homosexual behaviour is an "abomination" but that does not translate from the Hebrew into the word sin. A further reading of Lev. will show that it is also an abomination to eat shellfish and an abomination to wear clothing of two different fabrics. I think a new interpretation is definitely needed here.
Neither Romans nor Cor. specifically mention homosexuality as a sin.
In fact there is no where in the Bible where homosexuality is classed as a sin. It is only in the minds of the literalists/fundamentalists.
Homosexuality is not a choice it is part of the ontology of the being him/herself.
The Bible is Midrash and metaphor with kernals of history throughout. It is not a history book but a religious book and is to be treated as such. If we are not careful we can raise the Bible to the level of a "paper pope" and that is a form of idolatry.
Shalom
Ted :p