|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 7:27:38 PM | Stating that Christians believe or regard only the scripture they choose to makes them hypocrites, does it not? If I were to call you a hypocrite, would you consider that a hateful remark? I dare say yes.
Next
In the second sentence we see that the Christian founding father of Apologetics and the author of most of the New Testament is referred to as a "woman hater", meaning Christians condone sexism by following a religion that supports a sexist front runner of the faith. If I were to call you a sexist, I again dare say that you would think that a hateful remark, coming from a hateful gal who goes around calling folks sexist hypocrites. No?
People either live under the New Covenant, in which case none of the Levitical law applies and everything boils down to the Golden Rule, or they don't. Christians who follow what Jesus said truly are the salt of the Earth, and only a bigot would say anything bad about them.
However, not all people who claim to be Christians actually follow what Jesus said. Those who hold themselves out to be better, more righteous, or more "proper," or in any way superior to others because they follow more Levitical laws than others, are hypocrites in the same way that the Pharisees and Saducees were hypocrites in Christ's day. Any Christian who eats pork has absolutely _nothing_ to say about homosexuality.
Paul's doctrine that women should follow _is_ sexist, no two ways about it. And that is very unfortunate. But that's a side issue. This thread is about whether or not we can justify the continued denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples. My view is that we cannot.
Whether you want to deny that G0d-given right on the basis of "majority rule," a potential "slippery slope" that might recognize that the right to contract for future care and inheritance is not actually limited to pairs, or on the basis of "Christian doctrine," it really doesn't matter. The freedom to associate is what it is: a _right._
None of those arguments supercedes the Constitutional requirement to treat everyone equally under the law. If we're going to honor the commitments of some people to provide for one another in old age or adversity, then we should honor those commitments for all people.
If I don't want to live in a country that has, as a fundamental rule of government, the principle of equal treatment under the law, I don't have to. There are plenty of countries that do not. But if I want to live in a Western Democracy, then the price I pay for that privilege is that I have to put up with behavior on the part of others that I do not understand. However, as long as that behavior does not harm me, I don't need to understand it. It's none of my business. Is it?
Just as I would not tell you that you couldn't practice your religion to your heart's content, I wouldn't tell someone else whose form of worship involves same-sex marriage that they could not practice theirs.
What I want to know is this: If someone claims to be a Christian, how can they have time to worry about issues like this given the compelling need for their services doing the work in the world that Christ directed them to perform? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 7:31:37 PM | montanan:
I've had a little read about the polygynous subculture you refer to. Interesting stuff. It seems to be all Joseph Smiths' fault, stemming from an angel on a flaming pie dropping in and giving him the go ahead to practice multiple marriage in his newly created cult, way back in the 1830's. I have every confidence that the true strategy behind Mr Smiths' claimed revelation, whether he admitted it or not at the time, was his desire to shag lots of women.
You argue that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the same for polygynous unions. I see them as separate arguments that should not be confused. The gay issue is about the right of two people of whatever gender to marry and form a relationship based on equality. Polygyny harks back to a patriarchal age when females were in total subjugation to the males of the species. The fact that some American women are expounding the benefits of these unions does not change the fact that they are deeply anachronistic in a modern western society and are actually inequitable and even misogynistic in nature. I would put the enthusiasm of these ladies down to the fact that they have been raised in polygynistic cults to accept them as normal.
Anyway, there's another debate to be had there. If polygynist unions are to be denied recognition, I think their case should be argued separately to the gay marriage issue and it is not enough to say that both should be denied in deference to majority disapproval or because they go against tradition. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 8:06:17 PM | "It seems to be all Joseph Smiths' fault, stemming from an angel on a flaming pie dropping in and giving him the go ahead to practice multiple marriage in his newly created cult, way back in the 1830's."
Most excellently stated Clarence. Your words gave me a good  as I thought we all usually find someone to be the scapegoat for any issue being debated.
Polygamy actually had it's start long before Smith. In most every culture/society where a man could marry a woman, have some kids and then hit the road for months at a time to get work or hire out for war here and there inevitably met another woman in another area where no one knew his past and many men would do a second marriage and those men who were very traveled might engage three or four wives at various safe distances. That was done right here in America. It was carried over from Europe where it was done there. Men just carried the tradition of having more then one wife to the Americas. The difference with Smith was in the areas he did it, there was no law against it. But some people got upset that polygamy was alive and well and thriving right in plain site for anyone to see and they did not like that. If Smith had kept his polygamy behind closed doors, I doubt a federal law would have been passed. Maybe some state's passing laws against it but not a federal law.
It is not that I argue same sex rights to a marriage certificate will lead to polygamy having a right to it but more that the same sex cause will be an "enabler" for other groups to come forth and give it a try to get acceptance. I call this a catalyst. That is what it is. I don't see it happening for a long time because it will be a long time before the same sex cause can convince the majority to give up it's traditional thinking on the matter. The traditional thinking is just not Christian based as so exclaimed in this thread. Many different people have this thinking who are not religious or hardly religious at all and just believe the certificate does not belong to any union but a hetro union. Pro-homosexual marriage types refuse to believe this. To them, the only people who could be against same sex marriages are Christians. To them, it is an embarassement that non-religious types could agree with Christians.
The issues are very different I totally agree concerning gay marriages and polygamous marriages. But to see where this will end, you have to know how laws come to be in this capacity where it does not deal with the health and well being of peoples minds and bodies. This issue deals with a right or priviledge or what ever one calls it when two people want to be legally recognized as a couple in the USA. Making additions to who can be a legally married couple in the USA, state by state is one thing. But for a state supreme court or the supreme court of the USA to finally establish who has rights to a marriage certificate by constitutional amendment, they will have to decide who does not have rights to it. That means when this finally happens all those who want to be included in the final definition will give briefs as to why they should be included. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:38:24 PM | Any Christian who eats pork has absolutely _nothing_ to say about homosexuality. Referring to homosexuality as sin is not restricted to Levitical Law.
In the New Testament, several passages do as well.
Besides Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it.
This thread is about whether or not we can justify the continued denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples. My view is that we cannot.
I respect that and frankly, I personally, do not think it my business whether homosexuals marry or not. But in your post you attempted to referenced the Bible in rebuttal. Both under the Law of the Torah and the New Testament homosexuality is considered sinful.
Now if we wish to disregard the Christian religion and the God of the Bible from said marriages, that is another issue altogether, an issue that is not under the authority of the Church. (IMHO)
Just as I would not tell you that you couldn't practice your religion to your heart's content, I wouldn't tell someone else whose form of worship involves same-sex marriage that they could not practice theirs.
I agree, however, I cannot understand why said couples would desire to hold a religion or faith that condemns their lifestyle and choices of mates..these couples, IMHO, are free to live as they wish, free from anyone mocking, persecuting or regulating their lives. But said couples do not have the right to stand in the face of a religion that forbids such activities and demand that their freedom be made acceptable in said religion. That dog wont hunt.
What I want to know is this: If someone claims to be a Christian, how can they have time to worry about issues like this given the compelling need for their services doing the work in the world that Christ directed them to perform?
So you think this issue unimportant? I believe this issue, an issue that has caused pain and suffering for millions of homosexuals, hatred towards the religious from many and constant political scandal, to be very important indeed. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 9:47:26 PM | Maybe the real question we should be examining is this:
Why did governments of any kind decide to recognize unions between citizens in the first place?
Was it religious reasons?
Was it for tax reasons?
Was it for some other classifications?
I think that if we had the answer to that then we may be able to deal with the issue a little better. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 3:11:51 AM | ... I personally, do not think it my business whether homosexuals marry or not. But in your post you attempted to referenced the Bible in rebuttal. Both under the Law of the Torah and the New Testament homosexuality is considered sinful.
Well, I wasn't citing the NT to rebut the notion that the government can deny the right of anyone to legally marry. I was criticizing the view of so-called Christians (whom I refer to as such to distinguish them from--as you put it--true Christians) that they can pick and choose among which OT laws they would enforce against others.
Now if we wish to disregard the Christian religion and the God of the Bible from said marriages, that is another issue altogether, an issue that is not under the authority of the Church. (IMHO)
The principle of the separation of Church and State is well established as vital to the preservation of individual rights. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.
I agree, however, I cannot understand why said couples would desire to hold a religion or faith that condemns their lifestyle and choices of mates..these couples, IMHO, are free to live as they wish, free from anyone mocking, persecuting or regulating their lives. But said couples do not have the right to stand in the face of a religion that forbids such activities and demand that their freedom be made acceptable in said religion. That dog wont hunt.
You don't have to include them in your church if you don't want to. But you cannot deny them equal protection under the law. Now, as far as wanting to belong to the prevailing faith goes, who wouldn't want to be fully accepted into the prevailing culture? As regarding whether or not to accept people as they are, what would Jesus say? Not Paul, or Peter, or any of the other Apostles, but Jesus?
So you think this issue unimportant? I believe this issue, an issue that has caused pain and suffering for millions of homosexuals, hatred towards the religious from many and constant political scandal, to be very important indeed.
Oh, the bigotry of wanting to deny equal rights to others is certainly an important isse for Christians to confront--preferably among themselves. So is the desire to elevate one's own status while demeaning the legal and social status of others.
The issue of what to do about what other consenting adults might be doing behind closed doors? I honestly believe that true Christians have more important things to do with their time. Don't you? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 4:16:37 AM | The principle of the separation of Church and State is well established as vital to the preservation of individual rights. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. Nothing to do with religion? Are you serious?
The idea that marriage is a sacred religious sacrament is one of the most important arguments.
Indeed, if it weren’t for the idea that marriage is sacred, the debate would not be as rancorous as it is.
Legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter because of religion’s in sanctifying marriages.
Personally, some sort of "civil union" sounds more appropriate.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stated in an interview on ABC: “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what has traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and woman. So I would support the amendment [banning gay marriage].”
Well, I wasn't citing the NT to rebut the notion that the government can deny the right of anyone to legally marry. I was referring to the remark
Any Christian who eats pork has absolutely _nothing_ to say about homosexuality. (restrictions regarding pork is strictly O.T, whereas homosexuality is not)
I was criticizing the view of so-called Christians (whom I refer to as such to distinguish them from--as you put it--true Christians) that they can pick and choose among which OT laws they would enforce against others
Again, homosexuality is not an OT Law. You attempt to include and restrict homosexuality to the Levitical Laws alone, knowing full well that the act is condemned in the NT as well. But that is not the point.
As regarding whether or not to accept people as they are, what would Jesus say?
John 8:11
"Go and sin no more"
~ Jesus speaking to a woman who had also committed a sexual sin described merely paragraphs before homosexuality is described as sin in the book of Leviticus.
And again, this is not about accepting said people. Why would it have to be? The Law simply guards certain rights, yet many continue to demand to make this personal. It is not.
The issue of what to do about what other consenting adults might be doing behind closed doors? I honestly believe that true Christians have more important things to do with their time. Don't you? So you see this issue as simply "activities performed behind closed doors?
Already attempting to reduce the importance of marriage? I rest my case. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 4:42:12 AM | AP,
It is your claim that the NT condemns homosexuality, but I am not aware of that.
Please cite the exact verse in which Jesus specifically condemns homosexual acts and I'll concede your point. If the best you can come up with is a quote from Paul, the topic is still open for discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter because of religion’s in sanctifying marriages.
I think you have this inverted. The First Amendment says that the government may not establish any religion. So, the government can neither sanction nor promote any religious practice whatsoever. If your claim is that marriage is a religious institution, then the government has _no_ jurisdiction in it. If it is a secular institution, then sacrilege has nothing to do with it--it is a matter of legal rights and obligations and access to or denial of those rights and obligations must be made on the basis of rational and factual criteria alone.
The government has no business choosing which unions are to be sanctified and which are not. In all honesty, the correct resolution of this debate is to get the government out of the "marriage" business and make all legal unions civil. Then, if a couple wants the religious sanctification in addition to the legal rights and obligations of a legal/civil union, they and their churches can do what they will.
The reason we have a Judicial Branch is that Bill Frist cannot keep his job unless he says what the majority wants to hear (him being Majority Leader and all). It is up to the Courts to interpret the Constitution free of political influence. That's why the Judiciary is largely insulated from the electoral process.
So you see this issue as simply "activities performed behind closed doors?
Already attempting to reduce the importance of marriage? I rest my case.
Not at all. I see it as a legal matter. I think it is very important that people who love and honor each other be supported by the rest of us in fulfilling their agreements. I would never put my beliefs about what "they" should or shouldn't be doing ahead of the promises that they make to each other.
It seems to me that the so-called "Christian" position of demeaning relationships based on love because those relationships don't conform to their ideas of what should or shouldn't be reduces the importance of marriage. If people choose to commit to each other in good faith, where is the sin in that? Jesus wasn't about establishing a new book of rules--his critique of the Pharisees makes that clear. If his message wasn't about choosing compassion over prejudice, than what, exactly, was it? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 5:13:44 AM | AP,
It is your claim that the NT condemns homosexuality, but I am not aware of that.
Please cite the exact verse in which Jesus specifically condemns homosexual acts and I'll concede your point. If the best you can come up with is a quote from Paul, the topic is still open for discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Then by this reasoning, acts considered as sin in the OT are no longer considered sin by God today unless Jesus confirmed them yet again?
Stop and think....*tick-toc tick-toc*
There are hundreds of acts that we still consider sin today that JC didn't confirm in the NT.
Ex: in the OT, domestic violence is is referred to as sin but Jesus never even hinted that it was. So then, should you go beat the snot out of your wife?
Malachi 2:16-17 “I hate a man’s covering his wife with violence, as well as with his garment.” says the Lord Almighty
Besides, Paul wrote most of the NT, doll, you'll find it rather easy to leave me Biblically defenseless if you have the convenient option of disarming me by refusing any of his letters as valid scripture. Nice try, though.  (we cant make up fun new rules as we go along, unfortunately)
I will address the rest of your post asap.
Edit: Homosexuality as sin citation in NT
Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 6:06:58 AM | There is a movie now on DVD titled "For the Bible Tells Me So". Decent flick ~ you should check it out and educate yourself a little.
My partner and I pay far more taxes than I'll bet many of you do. Taxation without representation is what that is called. We get no tax breaks. Had to pay an attorney a lot of $ just so if one of us gets hurt, or passes, the other's family couldn't swoop in and financially ruin what's left of 'our' family. My family would never do that, but her dumbass brother and sister probably would. Yeah, they pick out certain passages to quote also. Funny how they don't bother to educate themselves on the origins of those passages. And they fail to even mention the other passages listing 'don'ts'. Like give all your wealth to the poor. What's Pat Robertson or James Dobson worth? Dobson alone is over 459 million. Guess he skipped that passage. What about eating shellfish? Planting more than one seed together in the ground? Wearing the fabric from 2 separate animals at the same time? Working on the Sabbath? Having sex only to procreate? Most of these things were not customary in the time period it was written. That is what is meant by claiming they are an abomination. And homosexuality is in your genetic makeup. It's not a learned behavior. I've know since I was like 4 years old that I was different that way. Grew up in a very small town where I was captain and president of everything. Everyone loved me and looked up to me. Came out when I was in my 20's. Most of the old crowd still love me, but some find me disgusting now. funny I'm the exact same damn person. Guess they liked me as long as I acted straight.
Now over 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce. Gee, I'd hate to threaten that institution. Walk in our shoes for a day. There is so much ignorant, that's right ~ ignorant right wing $ out there that I doubt I'll ever see gay marriage passed in my lifetime. What a shame. Not that I'm begging to get married, as I am comfortable without it. But paying the same taxes, and getting the same benefits sure would be nice. And, um, fair.
For the record ~ lesbians in general are more educated, make more $, make better pet owners, and better parents than their straight counter parts. I am absolutely not saying that's me ~ I'm saying scientifically in general. What are you guys so afraid of? geez
And think would allowing gay marriages would do for boosting the economy. Those fag boys throw the best parties. They would spend tons on flowers and decorations alone. HA | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:31:57 AM | Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
I didn't say I'd dismiss it. I said we'd have more to discuss. You might believe that what Paul wrote was divinely inspired, but I believe that much of what he wrote conflicts with what Jesus _said._ So if you want to base your faith on what amounts to second-hand commentary--since Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh--you're welcome to do that. But please remember that the canon was ratified by a consensus of men who were regarded as church authorities, and not by Jesus himself.
So we come back to the principles that Jesus himself advocated: "Judge not, lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And yes, he did tell the woman who was accused to go and sin no more, but was that was _after_ he said that if no one else would accuse her, neither would he. So, was that a specific admonition or generally good advice? Context indicates that it was good advice since He never accused her of sinning in the first place.
When what Paul says appears to conflict with what Jesus said, whom do you follow? Are you a Christian, or a Paulist? And if you are a Christian, would you shun prostitutes and others whose sexuality is regarded by others as sinful? Or would you folow His example by accepting them and reminding them of God's grace?
Wherever Paul's doctrines are consistent with what Jesus said, such as 1st Corinthians 13, I believe he gives good advice. But when they are not consistent, you have to make a choice as to whom you will follow. Did God endow you with intelligence and a direct and personal relationship with Him so that you could get your instructions out of a manual? Or are you supposed to look to your own sense of internal and divinely guided compassion for guidance on how to deal with people who are different than you?
And in our public policy, where people have the right to sin in your eyes as long as they do not harm others in the process, how does what Paul said have any relevance whatsoever? If what Paul says about homosexuals is true, then God can do the work of punishing them. In fact, doesn't God insist on that as His prerogative?
For a Christian to take what Paul said as license to deny others equal rights is ... well ... un-Christian. It's what a Pharisee would do.
Wasn't Paul a Pharisee before he saw his vision? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:50:55 AM | Of the talk going on about Christians and homosexuality I'll add my 2 cents worth. What I say is ONLY for pro-same sex marriage types that use name calling and not those pro-same sex marriage supporters who have an understanding of where most Christians come from on this matter and know their view has nothing to do with bigotry.
A real Christian who has read the Bible regardless of their religion will not support any form of sexual union outside that of a hetro union. They won't support premarital sex, shacking up, pornography of any kind or anyone having sex with anyone else that is outside the realms orf a married hetrosexual couple. IF you read the Bible you will see it teaches NOT to be a participant in any form of sexual behavior outside of a hetrosexual union.
So when most well read Christians say and state they are against same sex unions, it comes from their beliefs in the God of the Bible, not bigotry and hate filled thinking for homosexuals as many insinuate. When Christ met the Samaritan woman by the well and told her she was shacking up with a man (a sin of adultry) he did not tell her what she was doing was ok and acceptable to him because it was an ok and acceptable practice by her society. He told her to go and sin no more. So if Christ had met a man by that well who had been shacking up with another man do you think he would have told the man what you do is not your fault because you were born that way so of all the sexual sins he said not to do, homosexuals were an acceptance to the rule?? I think not. If people here call anti-supporters of same sex marriages bigots because they disagree then obviously to those same name calling people Christ also would be a bigot because he disagreed with much of what men and women did sexually outside the bounds of marriage. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:18:58 PM | If people here call anti-supporters of same sex marriages bigots because they disagree then obviously to those same name calling people Christ also would be a bigot because he disagreed with much of what men and women did sexually outside the bounds of marriage.
The issue here is not whether or not Christ would have approved or disapproved of the behavior. The question is whether or not we are justified in denying the rights of other people to equal treatment under secular law based on behavior that harms no one and damages no property. Christ might or might not have approved of specific sexual behaviors, but would He have advocated that the rights of others to equal treatment under the law be denied on the basis of those behaviors?
I believe He answered that Himself when He said, "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's."
I will grant you the distinction between those of good faith who beleive that same-sex unions are wrong and yet are willing to act with compassion from those who are bigots who abuse Christian doctrine to give themselves political cover for their prejudices.
A practicing Christian will regulate her or his own behaviors according to his or her best understanging of Christ's teachings and otherwise lead by example. That is what the early Christians did.
Still, if you are one of those people of good faith, you must understand that the abuse of your faith comes from those who misuse it to justify their bigotry, not those who denounce such bigotry--which continues to be perpetuated by false Christians in the name of Christ. "By their works shall ye know them."
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," might no longer be binding, but it should have at least as much weight as the OT prohibition against homosexuality. NonChristians shouldn't have to be the ones to tell such people to knock it off. That really should be coming from true believers--unless you secretly agree that your beliefs matter more than their rights.
And if that is your actual belief as a so-called Christian, then I'm sorry to say that it has no legal basis and the Courts will be doing their job when they strike it down. A real Christian understands that Christ fulfilled the law by embodying the divine principle of compassion and grace. So, even those benighted souls who behave in ways "we" don't approve of have equal access to Divine grace, forgiveness, and full entry into God's kingdom--wasn't that the point of the parable of the prodigal son?
And so, if God isn't going to discriminate against them, who are we to? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 1:32:25 PM |
A real Christian who has read the Bible regardless of their religion will not support any form of sexual union outside that of a hetro union. They won't support premarital sex, shacking up, pornography of any kind or anyone having sex with anyone else that is outside the realms orf a married hetrosexual couple. IF you read the Bible you will see it teaches NOT to be a participant in any form of sexual behavior outside of a hetrosexual union.
Well, thank you for disqualifying me as a "real Christian." Anything else that "real Christians" shouldn't support?
It seems to me that there is a parable I remember from the bible about a man, a leper or criminal or something, that was stranded on a road and how many people passed him by without helping him. But one person stopped and helped the man, regardless of whatever issue he had. And the lesson from the parable was that the one man who stopped to help the man was in the right and it was people like him who would inherit the Earth, or something like that.
I call myself a Christian. I refuse to go to church though because the vast majority of people in all of the churches I have attended are completely disingenuous. They come to church on Sunday, and they leave, and the only time they don't sin is that hour that they are in church. Other than that, they sin left right and forward.
I feel organized religion is a crutch for weak-minded people, nd am completely sickened whenever I am called by the church which has me on record as a member saying that they need money. Ladies and gentlemen, there is more to tithing then giving money. I see the reverends/fathers/whatever driving around in expensive cars and playing pulpit politics.
I try to live by Christian beliefs. Yes, I sin, I don't deny that. But let he who has no sin cast the first stone. Love the person, hate the sin. All that fun stuff. But most important is the one rule that is most important to me of all of Gods and Jesus teachings. That being love. Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. Do unto others as others do unto you. Treat everyone how you want to be treated. That is the most important of all rules.
With all of that being said, I do believe that we have to disengage marriage (religious) from marriage (legal). They are two completely and separate things.
Here is a thought though. A brave thought and a radical thought. Let's remove the word "MARRIAGE" completely off of any and all law books and government papers that currently exist and will exist in the future. If you want to get married, you can still do so. Just do it in the church. A church still will have the right to perform and recognize a marriage. It just won't be recognized by the government.
The government now recognizes a new union. A "CIVIL UNION." All laws and regulations currently referring to "marriage" will now refer to "civil union." The church will have NOTHING to do with a civil union. They have no rights to it. Have no say in it. And are completely removed from the process. The government is the only entity that will have the right to recognize and authorize civil unions.
Now, the churches can recognize "marriage" as whatever they want. And a civil union can be done between two consenting adults, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamous. Problem solved.
NEXT ISSUE!!! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:57:24 PM | Thanks for understanding the differance of which I wrote of MrMan.
MrMan wrote....
"I will grant you the distinction between those of good faith who beleive that same-sex unions are wrong and yet are willing to act with compassion from those who are bigots who abuse Christian doctrine to give themselves political cover for their prejudices."
Your words are my definition between a real Christian who is motivated by the true teachings of the Bible and applies them daily and a Christian who lives by some and measures all others by self-righteous bigotry.
Ezzee, I was not personally classifying you. For those claiming the title "Christian" it usually becomes quickly known just what type of a Christian a person is by the things (not their religion) they declare are their beliefs. A comparison here can be of someone who claims to be a Christian by the modern day definition whereby they make "exceptions" to what was written in the NT of specific things and judges God does not think that way any more. Then, in my opinion, you have a true Christian in comparison who will not make those amendments. They will go by what is written and apply it to our time. In this case we are speaking of human sexuality. Though in the OT you could be killed for doing specific sexual sins, in the NT Christ taught to forgive first as was done with I believe it was Mary Magdalene who was about to be stoned to death for her adulteress life style.
As an off-shoot of your own ideas, if there was a way to equate all human unions under the legal clauses but give recognition to each union as a seperate union, a seperate piece of paper, stating a difference in purpose and value for those needing that difference defined, I think things would go a lot easier. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/8/2008 10:40:58 PM | Now, the churches can recognize "marriage" as whatever they want. And a civil union can be done between two consenting adults, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamous. Problem solved.
Problem solved yet another created. Being Canadian our liberal government decided to bypass democracy and force same sex marriages through parliament. This was done by the prime minister disallowing his cabinet a free vote, they all had to vote his way. This is the man who said minorities should not have to submit to the rule of the majority. Now in Manitoba we had several marriage commisioners who would not marry same sex couples as it is against their personal beliefs. These commisioners had their licences revoked thus causing them harm. So now if your states follow suite are they going to allow these commisioners or whatever you call them down there to have the freedom to choose who they perform marriages for? Or as in our example are the rights of the commisioner going to be violated to force the rights of the same sex couple onto society?
Some other questions. Do courts really have the power to decide wich laws are law and wich are not and if so why does parliament bother to make the laws rather then let the court do it? Is the duty of the court not to uphold the laws of the land rather than decintegrate them in their quest to wrestle power from government? Is the individual so much more important than society that they are put before it?
This push for individual rights is a spinoff from the push for individualism spun from the feminist and civil rights movements and it has eroded the core of western society to the point we will soon be living in total anarchy. This selfish individualism has eliminated community and the family unit. We need to stop and think and take a look at what society has become in the past few years. It seems each generation tries to amend the perceived flaws of the previous generations and all each does is make society a less hospitable environment. | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 1:22:26 AM |
Now in Manitoba we had several marriage commisioners who would not marry same sex couples as it is against their personal beliefs. These commisioners had their licences revoked thus causing them harm.
Seems to me that when I work for an employer and the duties of my job change, I can choose to continue in the job by performing the new duties, or I can refuse to perform those new duties and lose my job. If I am fired for refusing to do the job I am being paid for, was I harmed? Or did I just receive the expected consequence of my insubordination?
Those people made what they felt was a principled stand. I respect them for that, even though I believe they stood for the wrong principle. I regret that it came to that for them, but I either serve the people in a public service job, or I don't. If I prefer to serve my own private religious interests, I don't belong in a public service job.
This push for individual rights is a spinoff from the push for individualism spun from the feminist and civil rights movements and it has eroded the core of western society to the point we will soon be living in total anarchy. This selfish individualism has eliminated community and the family unit. We need to stop and think and take a look at what society has become in the past few years. It seems each generation tries to amend the perceived flaws of the previous generations and all each does is make society a less hospitable environment.
The civil rights movement, along with its components (racial, gender, sexual-orientation, religious, ethnic, etc.), is about equal treatment under the law. It is about conforming our actual practice more closely to the ideals of Western Democracy as
delineated in the US Constitution, among other such social contracts.
I understand your point and do recognize that our sense of community has eroded.
However, is it the counterculture that is to blame for that, or is it the conventional, consumerist adveritising-based culture? Near as I can tell, the people on the Left whom you denounce are the ones who are calling for more cooperation, less prejudice, more community involvement, less exclusivity, a clear-eyed view of justice, and a long-term perspective that would moderate unbridled competitive and individualistic behavior.
It seems to me that it is those on the Right who incessantly promote competition as a value unto itself rather than a means to an end, a market that is unfettered by even the most reasonable of regulations, rugged individualism at all costs, disdain for human differences, complete disregard for civility in political discourse, and a celebration of utter lack of concern on the part of those who are most fortunate.
Yes, as part of asserting freedom the counterculture did promote the idea of free love. And yes, that notion has had some bad effects. However, they promoted it as an alternative to mindless obedience to so-called authorities who were throwing away the lives of our best and brightest young men on pipe-dreams (and nightmares) of world domination. Personally, I'd rather have anarchy than the regimented lives we'd be living now if the Viet Nam era protests had not occurred.
Yes, things were certainly more convenient and "hospitiable" for an elite minority before all those other people got uppity and started asserting their rights, but really, they either were within their rights to expect equal treatment under law and custom or they weren't.
Were they or weren't they?
If they _were,_ then we all have to make adjustments for the sake of justice, and our task becomes one of basing our society on justice for all rather than the convenience of the fortunate.
If you believe that honoring familial commitments is vital to a just society, please get people organized around that principle and make your case. I won't argue.
But, if you intened to argue that such commitments are only for _some_ people and not others, I'm afraid that position no longer has much credence. If you want to restore the preeminence of the family as a social institution, you'll have to find another basis for doing so--one that is inclusive of people who grew to mistrust "the family" as a vestige of religious oppression.
Yes, that's harsh, but we are all conflicted about what "family" means these days, and that conflict is a direct result of the religious oppression of healthy sexuality that the Church promoted for so many centuries as a gambit for sustaining its political power.
We want the promise of loving and being loved for who we are. But is that what conventional families really did? How much of what they did was motivated by religious authority to "break the will" of children and enforce a conformity with rules promulgated by supposedly celibate priests (and their pastoral successors--though it was the priests who formulated those rules).
The bottom line is this. Do we commit to one another for a higher purpose, or for our own individual advantage? If it is for a higher purpose, exactly what purpose is that?
In healthy families, it used to be so that we could better fulfill the Divine Purpose to which we were born--whatever that turned out to be. Many beleived that purpose was to provide better lives for their children, and to instill in their children that same purpose so that their grandchildren would have a chance to come into their fullest potential. We also committed to one another to ensure that we each would be cared for by the other when we grew old (either directly or as beneficiaries of our life insurance), o that we would not become burdens on our children and grandchildren, but would instead foster them in freedom and the full exercise of their rights and freedoms to achieve _their_ Divine Purposes.
But it wasn't the Left who made us venal, selfish, brutal, short-sighted, mean-spirited, and stupid. There is nothing wrong with Peace, Love, Understanding, Justice, and Equality. There is an awful lot wrong with those who ridicule such ideals, and who set people against each other in order to profit from their strife.
So, why don't you look at who is promoting sefishness and strife by advocating exclusivity and condemning differences, and then look at who is advocating for the end of such evil pracitces. Then you can tell me which agenda I should support.
There's a great line in Tolkein's _The_Silmarillion:_ "With the voice of [the Dark Lord] dost thou upbraideth thy friends." | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 1:34:50 AM | Some other questions. Do courts really have the power to decide wich laws are law and wich are not and if so why does parliament bother to make the laws rather then let the court do it? Is the duty of the court not to uphold the laws of the land rather than decintegrate them in their quest to wrestle power from government? Is the individual so much more important than society that they are put before it?
The job of the courts is to decide which laws are consistent with the function of the government--which in a free society is to protect the rights of individuals--and which laws are not. Because legislatures are subject to political influence, they can make mistakes, and the courts are there to determine when such mistakes have occurred.
That's right. Not only do courts have that power, it is essential to avoid tyranny that they have it and that they use it.
The only legitimate purpose of the government is to protect your rights as well as mine. Because the government has the police power, there must be a check on that power, and that is why the courts have been given the discretion to hold the other branches of government accountable.
In a Western Democracy, the founding principle is that the individual is inviolate, and neither the government nor a majority of citizens can trample the rights of any individual in the pursuit of collective aims. Such aims are to be agreed upon and pursued by way of contracts--agreements freely entered into without coercion or fraud. When such aims are to be fulfilled by a governmental agency, the approval must come from a vote of the people or their duly elected representatives. But even then the government must act lawfully, and the laws that take precedence are those that most clearly articulate the terms of the social contract by which the rights of all individuals are best protected. In the US, that is the Bill of Rights.
The denial of access to certain contracts on the basis of irrational criteria strikes at the very heart of our Democracies. Anyone who values his or her freedom has to consider the slippery slope that occurs when you say that some people can contract for certain benefits while others cannot, even though there may be no rational basis for such a distinction.
Yes, I know some claim that "marriage is for children," but clearly it is not. If people who have no intention of raising children can marry (which they can), you cannot say that marriage is for purposes of raising children. Another purpose of marriage is to signify inheritance, and denying people equal convenience in specifying their primary heirs and caregivers is simply unconscionable. Since that is perhaps the primary benefit of marriage to the partners themselves, I'd go so far as to say that what legal marriage is really about is the right to name one's own next of kin. If men and women can do that through marriage, we cannot deny the same access to such a benefit to others on the basis of gender alone.
But if you think we can, please explain how it could be done while still maintaining equal treatment under the law. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 2:49:26 AM |
A real Christian who has read the Bible regardless of their religion will not support any form of sexual union outside that of a hetro union. They won't support premarital sex, shacking up, pornography of any kind or anyone having sex with anyone else that is outside the realms orf a married hetrosexual couple. IF you read the Bible you will see it teaches NOT to be a participant in any form of sexual behavior outside of a hetrosexual union.
A puritan is a person who's upset that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.
I say puritan, because that's a person who is strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so. I didn't use the capitalized version of the word, example: Puritan.
So again, A puritan is a person who's upset that someone, somewhere, is having a good time, and who supports pro-discrimination legislation. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 10:37:59 AM | get mad baby said.....
"A puritan is a person who's upset that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.
I say puritan, because that's a person who is strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so. I didn't use the capitalized version of the word, example: Puritan.
So again, A puritan is a person who's upset that someone, somewhere, is having a good time, and who supports pro-discrimination legislation."
The great thing about personal statements are they are exactly that. A personal statement. Lets take your words for example Get mad. In you opinion a Puritan is a person that is ...upset at people who seem to be having a good time at whatever, morally strict to an excessive point and discriminates against pro-same sex marriages.
First, there actually few true Puritans that exist. Not to the full definition of the word except for a few religious offshoots of Jewdaism and Christianity. The rest are pretty liberal in their thinking.
Second, refraining from sex is not a Puritan belief, not in our time. It is called abstinance and or celebacy. It is actually healthy to refrain and many do it. It is the best form of safe sex out there.
Third, those that refrain from sex that you call puritans, they are usually out there having as much fun as the next person but fun for them usually does not equte sex in the definition of having fun.
Fourth you say a puritan discriminates against same sex marriages/homosexuality. That is a judgement call on your part of a whole lot of people that you don't know. Pre-judging people in that capacity reveals things about your thinking. The definition of discriminates is as follows....
discriminate >verb 1 recognize a distinction. 2 make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
You of course would have been using the 2nd definition to show your point without conceeding not all fall under that definition.
In summary you have shown that you are highly judgemental of anyone that disagrees with your own personal thoughts in this matter and they have to be bigots and homophobia types because in your writing you demonstarate anyone in their right mind according to your thinking would have to be for same sex marriages, not against it. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 11:32:18 AM | First of all, norseviking869, I'm assuming with all of those arrows you are referring to my post. See, here is the thing, if all of the laws and regulations were changed, they wouldn't have a choice but to recognize civil unions.
A lawyer is there to help interpret and argue the law. If the word civil unions was the word in the law books, then they have no choice but to recognize it. The same with the IRS. They would have no choice but to recognize civil unions.
As an off-shoot of your own ideas, if there was a way to equate all human unions under the legal clauses but give recognition to each union as a seperate union, a seperate piece of paper, stating a difference in purpose and value for those needing that difference defined, I think things would go a lot easier.
Montanan, as far as I'm concerned, there would be no difference. Why would there be a need to state a difference. The only thing that may need to be done is to list any and all other unions listed upon the form or status, but other than that, there would be no need to label a union as anything but that, a union. That way a man can have a union with a man and it would be legally recognized. A woman can have a union with a woman and it would be legally recognized. A man could have a union with a man and be legally recognized. A man could have a union with 15 different women and each one would be legally recognized. A woman could have a union with 25 different men and each one would be legally recognized.
I'd just hate to see the mess in the latter of those two examples if they dissolved. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 2:18:57 PM | I didn't say I'd dismiss it. I said we'd have more to discuss. You might believe that what Paul wrote was divinely inspired, but I believe that much of what he wrote conflicts with what Jesus _said._
Couple of examples would prove useful, doll.
So if you want to base your faith on what amounts to second-hand commentary--since Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh--you're welcome to do that. But please remember that the canon was ratified by a consensus of men who were regarded as church authorities, and not by Jesus himself.
Paul was ordained by God Himself to write letters to Churches (most of NT) and become a front runner of the faith, and said "commentary" is the Word of God, and inspired by Him. (and save the "says Paul" crap, many witnesses were with Paul when God struck him blind and gave him his little "attitude adjustment". And dozens of disciples, prophets and godly men and women of the Bible confirmed this in the Bible in separate books not written by him. To state that Paul is anything but what he claimed is not only illogical but it also dismisses everything but the Gospels in the rest of the New Testament as all lies.
Is that what you are saying? *taps foot*
So we come back to the principles that Jesus himself advocated: "Judge not, lest ye be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And yes, he did tell the woman who was accused to go and sin no more, but was that was _after_ he said that if no one else would accuse her, neither would he.
Well said. I agree. But we arent talking about individuals such as myself, we are talking about the authority of the Church, and its right to govern religious ceremonies and the governments responsibility to protect the Churches authority.
So, was that a specific admonition or generally good advice? Context indicates that it was good advice since He never accused her of sinning in the first place. False. Jesus said to go and sin no more undoubtedly meaning
for her to stop sinning.
When what Paul says appears to conflict with what Jesus said, whom do you follow? Never happened before. If it does in the future, then of course Christ.
And if you are a Christian, would you shun prostitutes and others whose sexuality is regarded by others as sinful? Or would you follow His example by accepting them and reminding them of God's grace?
I do have friends that are living sinful sexual lives already so that answeres your question.
* I am not perfect myself and would repeat Paul's words "I am the chief of sinners" myself, but that is not the issue. My sin is not on trial neither do I willfully disobey God daily and then stand in the face of my Church and demand that they except my sin and call it "an old OT Law", simply because I want my faith and eat it too.
Did God endow you with intelligence and a direct and personal relationship with Him so that you could get your instructions out of a manual?
God's gifts to His children are all different and to reduce His written Word to "manual" is insulting.
For a Christian to take what Paul said as license to deny others equal rights is ... well ... un-Christian. It's what a Pharisee would do.
Judging the motives of Christains is judgemental and is what Pharisees would do.
Wasn't Paul a Pharisee before he saw his vision? No. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 3:52:11 PM | As far as what I am seeing of this issue Ezzee that is the underlying problem is that certain people, religious/non-religious types do not want same sex marriages or any other type of human union equated with a hetro marriage license. This is beyond bigotry/non-bigotry. This deals with a base human belief of many that the hetro license should not be shared. Note the word 'shared' that I used. These people do not want to share this license with any other union. That is the actual main argument if you read between the lines because these same people in many instances have shown they have no problems with supporting other unions having their own license with the same/similar legalities attached to that license.
So we really are dealing with some reverse thinking psych 101 with a twist for a solution. If the courts were to seperate a hetro license for marriage from a same sex license for marriage, the traditionalists would back off in a hurry seeing no one is trying to share their license any longer because same sex unions would have a specific one of their own.
I know a lot of work would have to be done to establish this difference but if it was done....I bet the controversies would deminish quickly. But as long as any human union fights for that one specific license that many feel is for hetros, the controversy shall continue. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/9/2008 4:02:41 PM | Yes! Separate but equal, a great idea! Then we can have same sex water fountains, bathrooms, and we can give them all certain seats on the buses...
See where I'm going?
This is discrimination, you're advocating it, rationalizing it, and it's wrong. Just as it was in the Jim Crow era, so to is it the same now. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
