|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,397
b0x @dm1n
|
b0x @dm1n
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,397 |
You aren't seperating church from state! The marriage they want is legally binding. It has nothing to do with religuos beliefs. I'm not askin the church to recognize it only the gov't! The church doesn't declare you split you belonging's 50/50 or who the children belong to!
-Andy
Last edited by Andy W.; 07/03/03 05:32 PM.
Andy W.
The problem with America is stupidity.
I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment
for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety
labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Andy W.:
You aren't seperating church from state! The marriage they want is legally binding. It has nothing to do with religuos beliefs. I'm not askin the church to recognize it only the gov't! The church doesn't declare you split you belonging's 50/50 or who the children belong to!
-Andy
Exactly my point...
What they want(have gotten) has little similarity to marriage as it WAS. I distictly remember my vows including "we are gathered here together UNDER GOD"..fairly typical in a Christian wedding. Not all weddings are Christian but short of the quick trip to Vegas or a Justice of the peace a religious reference is typical. The lack of religion in marriage is not solely responsible for the degradation of the insitution but may be a component. Basic Religious values tend to be a good thing in marriage.
I understand what the ruling was, I am only stating that marriage has changed alot in recent years, and generally not for the better. Not the fault of gays certainly but the recent ruling certainly doesn't help the institution IMO.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
What they want(have gotten) has little similarity to marriage as it WAS.
Have gotten?
In Hawaii maybe, that's it. Homosexual still can't get legally married anywhere else in this country.
Quote:
I distictly remember my vows including "we are gathered here together UNDER GOD"..fairly typical in a Christian wedding. Not all weddings are Christian but short of the quick trip to Vegas or a Justice of the peace a religious reference is typical.
Gay weddings have those same things too, ya know.
There's lots of Christian homosexuals; very devout ones some of them. And they can get married in a great many churches (and no, I'm not talking about some little tiny made-up ones either).
Quote:
The lack of religion in marriage is not solely responsible for the degradation of the insitution but may be a component. Basic Religious values tend to be a good thing in marriage.
What, do you think gays don't have religious values?
Quote:
I understand what the ruling was, I am only stating that marriage has changed alot in recent years, and generally not for the better. Not the fault of gays certainly but the recent ruling certainly doesn't help the institution IMO.
You're comparing a religious marriage to a legal marriage -- two totally different things.
Homosexuals have always been able to get a religious marriage. They just needed to find a priest (or whomever) willing to do so. Something not very difficult.
Now they want a legal marriage. And there's certainly more than "tax and insurance breaks" that go along with marriage; especially since until very recently you took a tax penalty to get married, and many insurance companies already respect the 'marriage' of 2 same-sex individuals.
They've always been able to get married in the eyes of God. Anybody can marry anyone or anything and do that. Now they want to get married in the eyes of Uncle Sam, with all the benefits (not many) and legal detriments (a lot)that go along with it.
What's so bad about that?
You want to talk about degradation of marriage and family life, consider the fact that homosexuals are allowed to have partners, get religiously married, and even have children, These people want to be married, for all intents and purposes they are married, have some of the best relationships with themselves and their children that I've ever seen, but they can't get a piece of paper that says their married by the state.
Meanwhile, there's 10s of millions of heterosexuals you are married, don't want to be, and their children suffer because of it.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
I don't get it. On one hand, you imply homosexuals are inherently promiscuous. On the other hand, you don't want them to get married and be monogamous. Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.
Please go back and quote me where I don't want them to be monogamous. I do have a problem with calling homosexual unions a marriage, but I have no problem with such unions.
Check my posts, you will find I am not being inconsistent.
Besides, what I posted about responsibility is NOT limited to homosexuals.
I thought that was patently clear in what I wrote.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Please go back and quote me where I don't want them to be monogamous. I do have a problem with calling homosexual unions a marriage, but I have no problem with such unions.
Can I ask why you have a problem with calling it a "marriage".
By definition it is a "marriage", but I know that your problem may be unrelated to the technical definition of the word.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682 |
My dad married his current wife (#3), at a Judge's office. Not because he is some sort of pagan, but because church marriages and the whole ceremony things costs time and money.
And yes, he and his wife are practicing Christians.
I'm sure there are those who consider this arraingement sinfull. But he certainly doesn't.
98.5 Contour SVT
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"
--US President George W Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
For JATO, a little Bible beating, but read past just this, there is more...
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
That said, government was never given the Constitutional authority to govern morality (which is relative in any case). There is nothing wrong with marketing a community to a particular demographic, but there it against the freedoms of this country to legislate the community to do so. People have the right to believe and feel as they wish, but they do not have a right to create legislation to exclude based on those feelings and beliefs. "
"Let's get artificial government restriction out of our society once and for all.
dude, what you just said makes murder, if the person finds it MORAL to be okay, rape to be okay, child to adult sex okay. This is SICK SICK SICK. This kind of argument holds no water under any bridge. Heck, if the government is not to get in our business at all, then lets just get rid of the speed limit, drinking limits, sex consensus age limits, murder laws, abortion laws, sodomy...(wait, already did that), laws on burglary, laws on stealing, laws on, well, EVERYTHING MORAL. The government puts MORALITY into our law with every law on the books. Unfortunately, OUR government is taking steps in making law more based on the morality that you are trying to pass, that there is no morality and there is ABSOLUTELY no ABSOLUTES. (what kind of an argument is that????? Really...)
Originally posted by daenku32:
Nature never intended for us to drive cars either.
Nature, or as we use to refer to Him, GOD, never intended us to have homo sex either, or have to deal with murder, or rape, or child pornography, or prostitution, or anything having to do with the wonderful world of SATAN.
God created the world perfect in every way. Sin was introduced through ADAM AND EVE (not steve) and since, our world has fallen apart. It seems nobody here is looking at history for a good idea of what will happen to this country if we continue to lose the MORAL standing of our FOREFATHERS!!! Look at Rome. They started out as one of the strongest countries around, then after they had conquered all they needed, they became lazy, and began eating and bathing together. They also started having sex orgies, eating orgies, and any other kind of extreme indulgence you can think of. They even laid down so they could eat more. The country, as it was back then, IS GONE. Why? BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR MORALS AND ALLOWED AN INTERNAL BREAKDOWN, exactly the direction our country is headed.
And Jato, Jato, Jato...
Originally posted by jato:
I used to be on the Bible-beating side of the fence on this in that I thought gays were abhorrent in the sight of God. No longer, since I've done some moderate delving into the subject and explored the weak-a$$ed arguments that certain religious groups have blinded themselves and their followers with.
It's not Bible beating, it is strictly living by a standard that the world will never understand until they find the loving savior Jesus Christ. Heres some Bible beating for you...
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."
Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (if you don't know the story, read it. Basically, men of the Lord came to a house and the men in the city demanded that the head of the house bring the men of God out so they could have homo sex with him)
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
As stated in the first verse I posted, there is no condemnation in Christ, but you must accept Him first, all of Him. Homosexuality is a sin, a CHOICE. Turn to Jesus, listen to His word, He can heal you and save you. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
First off, this was written by Paul (I think), who really can't be used in this argument as to say what is right and wrong.
Paul also believed that slavery was a normal (there's that word again) practice and that women should be oppressed. Or do you take that as gospel too?
But, forgetting that, this is a case of mis-translation. In fact, in about half of the major translations the phrase "Male prostitues nor homosexual offenders" isn't even in the passage at all. It only mentions "Effeminity" and "Abusers of themselves with men". Paul was a Jew. Effeminite Jews are not looked highly upon -- homosexual or not.
"Abusers of themselves with men" is usually seen as meaning either rapists or people who are homosexual perverts or pedophiles. Not those in loving homosexual relationships.
Quote:
Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."
Don't have ready access to read the story, but if I remember correctly this passage is referring to rape, not homosexuality. Homosexual rape is just as bad as heterosexual rape in the eyes of God.
Quote:
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
And according to some mondern Hebrew and Biblical scholars, the actual text is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."
But, lets forget that for now.
Leviticus is ignored by a great many people, heterosexual or not. Most of Leviticus is ignored by today's society (including even the most conservative) because it's rather... extreme in it's ideas. Especially in the punishments.
Also, there is a lot of confusion over what "...with mankind, as lieth with a woman", actually means. This could mean that the man is having sex with a man thinking about a woman, which would be adulterous. Or it means he's violating his own sexual orientation, something that comes up a few times in the Bible and I will mention further in regards to Romans.
Quote:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Now if you read this whole passage you find that it's all about heterosexual orgies.
Now, in 1:26, "God gave them up into vile affections". Of course, that is open for many different translations, but many will agree that it means that God influenced them at that moment to engage in homosexual activities. Because all of a sudden the women and men started engaging in activities that were unnatural even to them -- having sex with one another.
It says nothing of the homosexual acts being wrong. It discusses only heterosexual men and women acting in a sexual manner contrary to their nature. Meaning that a heterosexual engaging in homosexuality is just as wrong as someone born homosexual to have heterosexual sex.
This passage can be more easily interpreted one way or the other depending on the particular translation that you read.
And remember, you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. The phrase "Men with other men", often used throughout the bible especially in passages dealing with homosexuality, is another mistranslation of a Greek word which, while it did mean, "Men with other Men", it was used for pedophilia, not homosexuality.
Most of the passages in the Bible that refer directly to "Homosexuality", or use the harshest language against it, are the newer versions. The New International or King James -- both of which are the ones you quoted from.
Older versions, and especially those in the more original Hebrew or Greek, are FAR closer to the actual wording, and thereby FAR closer to the actual Word of God. And those versions make far less references to any sort of homosexual relationship except abusive ones.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
99SESPORT, you took what I said, and really took it out of context. However, you proved exactly why morals should not be used as a basis for legislation.
The reason I state the rules on sodomy and gay marriage are artificially created by the morality of some is that there are no victims. I have sex with a man, marry him, even adopt children with him. I have not harmed you or anyone not consenting to the relationship more than if a heterosexual has sex, marries, and has/adopts children. Some zealots just wrongly believe they know how to live my life better than I do, an infringement I have traditionally laid squarely with liberals.
Murder, theft, abortion, bestiality, rape, statutory rape, assault, battery all share something in common that sodomy and gay marriage don't: they all have a victim who either did not consent or was unable to consent. That is what laws should be about. That is not morality.
The age of consent for sex is not based on Christian morality, but on a standard where a person is considered able to make a decision on sex, or at least be responsible for the consequences. For centuries, the age of sexual/marital consent for females was 12 in many Christian countries. England kept the standard into the 1700s.
I wouldn't examine the morality of many of our forefathers too closely... they weren't particularly moral.
I'll not get into prostitution, drinking laws, and speed/traffic laws. Those are several more huge topics.
I'll put it simply, my belief is that the legal system should be along the lines of the ancient Wergild systems, where you must pay restitution for harm done to others, but doesn't get involved beyond that.
Tony, I totally agree with your statements, though I do not see where that extends to sodomy laws or gay marriage. Neither raises your tax bill, or is expecting a government program to subsidize it. In fact, with homosexual men being the second largest concentration of wealth in this country, we subsidize a lot more than we have subsidized for us.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Tony, I totally agree with your statements, though I do not see where that extends to sodomy laws or gay marriage. Neither raises your tax bill, or is expecting a government program to subsidize it. In fact, with homosexual men being the second largest concentration of wealth in this country, we subsidize a lot more than we have subsidized for us.
I may not be gay, but I'll give an Amen to that. 
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
