posted on February 21, 2004 12:05:46 PM new
KD - What I have stated is that my opinion is the 'tradition' side of this debate.
I have also stated that many who ALSO are against gay marriage as opposed to civil unions are NOT all religious people.
I know you are Canadian and maybe not aware of people like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, etc. Boxer is extremely liberal. They too oppose changing the meaning of 'marriage'. That doesn't make them radical, extremists, right winged Christian people who base their opinion about changing the meaning of marriage.
And to say he wants to exclude religious views from a thread and then throw his religious 'take' into that same thread....IS laughable.
posted on February 21, 2004 12:31:44 PM new"oh but helen - here's what he said in his FIRST post" "Without using religion or references from the bible, I would like to hear from people who are opposed to gay marriage." "Then proceeds to do just that himself."
linda,
But, when posters include religion and references to the Bible in their answers, I believe that it's appropriate to address those opinions. Logan handled the situation appropriately. As you know very well, few posters remain focused on the topic.
On another thread, Pat asked...
"And please note that anything any of you deem worthy of posting/quoting from one of these blogs will not be subjected to contradiction. This is an attempt to gather opinions beyond our own and collate them for the benefit of all who might otherwise never read them. Okay, Linda? Okay, Twelvepole?"
Both you and twelvepole were the only posters to ignore that request.
posted on February 21, 2004 01:14:02 PM new
Linda,
Yes my opening question on the thread did say "without using religion". However as this thread progressed, the majority of everyone's reponses were based on religion in one form or another.
You had said your views were based on tradition. Twelve said it was a sin.
In my opinion those viewpoints are religion based.
I tried to get an answer that was not religion based, but I realized that was not going to happen. Since the religious aspect kept coming up, I decided to bring up a few of teachings from the Bible to get a few responses from people.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 01:20:43 PM new"KD - What I have stated is that my opinion is the 'tradition' side of this debate."
All that are opposed have an opinion based on tradition. These traditions are based on religion. Logansdad wanted to know what people's opinions were that WEREN'T based on religion, so you didn't really answer the question after all. Nobody has.
As far as Feinstein and Boxer, I haven't heard why they're opposed. Have they said why?
posted on February 21, 2004 01:34:06 PM new
I wanted to add that not only on this board, but anywhere, I have yet to hear a person say why homosexuality, or gay marriage is wrong unless it's based on a religious belief. Have you Linda? Helen? Pat? Anyone??
posted on February 21, 2004 02:11:58 PM new
Kraft,
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like the reasons against gay marriages fall into a couple of categories:
1)it is against the norm/tradition, what they have always been taught or have been used to
2)it will undermine society and we will have a modern day sodom and gamora
Those in favor of gay marriages are in favor because they want equal rights, want the ability to have the same benfits that straight couples have in a marriage, want to be recognized as having a loving committed union.
It would be interesting to see what Jesus' view on this would be if he were alive today?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 02:38:04 PM new
Let's put this in perspective.
In the past week over 3,000 gay couples have gotten married in California. Without debating whether or not it is legal, how has your life changed now that 3,000 gay couples have been married?
Has the marriage of 3,000 gay couples caused you any physical harm? Has it caused you to stop doing anything different in your normal daily routine?
Except for making you think and question your beliefs how was it affected your own personal life?
How would your life be different right now, if it was 3000 straight couples that got married within the past week?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 02:53:49 PM new
I'm going to marry 7 wives, one for each day of the week. I brought them in from Russia and we're all going down to San Francisco tomorrow and get married.
posted on February 21, 2004 03:02:58 PM new
Just a note. I do not normally quote scripture. I don't feel it ever does much to uphold ones side of a debate. It has so many interpretations and people see the contents so differently coming to an agreement on meaning is almost impossible. It's a personal thing and interpretation in my opinion is better left to thoughtful ponderment and prayer. Asking God what He meant will achieve your best results. However the question in this case is how I can justify what logans perceives as conflicting scripture so I will use scripture to explain my viewpoint.
Judge not that you be not judged. A very commonly used phrase and a very misunderstood one to. It is immediately followed by " For with what judgement ye judge, ye will be judged : and with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again." Does that mean that if you never judge that you will never be judged by the Lord? That couldn't possibly be true because it contradicts so much other scripture about judgement being the Lords.
If you look at the Greek word used in this translation krinete its definition includes: by implication to try, condemn, punish. In other translations of this word in the bible it is also translated as:avenge, condemn, damn, decree, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to. Our own definition of the word judge has many meanings.
In my opinion this scripture is not telling us do not ever say anything is wrong. It is saying to be careful how we judge someone and warning us in our judgements to make sure we are not damning, condemning, avenging or sentencing anyone. Judge being an action taken upon a person. It is not our place to pass judgement or punishment on anyone. That alone is the Lords' prerogative. Stating a sin is a sin. Standing with a clear voice of right and wrong is not passing a judgement or punishment on anyone. It's being clear as to what the commandments of the Lord are. It is also being clear in a loving manner. Names need not be called, physical harm has no part, abuse is never ok.
In addition you must take the bible as a whole and not pick and choose versus. There are many references in the bible to making righteous judgements and judging uprightly. Taken as a whole I think they paint a clear picture of how to make good judgements, for we all make judgements every day of our lives. And how to refrain from making condemning judgements or trying to punish people for that is not our right. God alone will pass any punishment.
Now let's look at love. Love thy neighbor as thyself. What is love? Is it saying that whatever anyone does is ok? Is it knowing a certain action will bring unhappiness and eventually judgement if not changed and then being silent about it? Is it blanket acceptance of what anyone chooses to do as ok? If you apply that train of thought then you have to apply it across the board. You could never stand for any principal because there will always be those who won't follow any certain principal. That in my opinion is not love. Love is caring about someone else, about their welfare. Wanting what is best for them and what will bring them happiness. Love has a price. People don't always want to be loved. People often don't want you to put their best interests first. They want to be left alone. Look at teenagers. In their youth they do not recognize the restrictions put on them as love. They don't see insistence of a good education as being for their welfare. They don't see a curfew as doing them any good. They look at it as controlling them.
People assume that Christians are just trying to control people. That we are trying to impose our will on everyone else. I can't speak for everyone but that is not my motive. I have an obligation to God to stand by His words and be clear and if at all possible help people out of sin. My obligation to Him superceeds anything else. My loyalty is to Him and His word and to do all in my power to help His children, even if that means they don't like me or are offended by me. I don't like people to feel bad or to be hurt but I'm more concerned with their eternal welfare than I am with being popular here. When we all stand before the judgement seat of God, it will be clear that I am indeed loving my neighbor as myself and furthermore being a good friend.
posted on February 21, 2004 03:13:22 PM new "I wanted to add that not only on this board, but anywhere, I have yet to hear a person say why homosexuality, or gay marriage is wrong unless it's based on a religious belief. Have you Linda? Helen? Pat? Anyone??"
Kraftdinner, Homosexuality or heterosexuality are not moral conditions to be judged right or wrong. Anyone who considers either preference wrong is simply misguided.
posted on February 21, 2004 03:18:03 PM new
Here is a nonreligious reason for not allowing gay marriages.
If you allow gay marriages on the basis of not discriminating against people who love each other disregarding the fact that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman then I think you are opening yourself up to a huge avalanche of potential problems. I mentioned bisexuality. How could we possibly deny them the right to marry two partners? Because marriage has always been defined as between two people? So what. It has up until now been defined as between a man and a woman. Obviously we can change the definition. Furthermore how could you possibly outlaw polygamy. It is practiced by several religions around the world. Freedom of religion mixed with a changing definition of marriage. We can't deny them either. Now what if a bisexual wife decides she wants to marry a second party. We can't deny that. Pretty soon you'll have webs of marriages all over the place and overlapping. Child custody would become a nightmare. What about insurance? You'll be having people marry just to get the insurance coverage, after all what's one more partner? You could bring the insurance companies to its knees. What about death or sickness? Who would get to decide a person's fate? The courts would be full of cases to decide this or that.
We're not discussing bisexual or polygamous marriages. True, but do you really honestly believe that if you start messing with it that you can keep denying these people the same "rights" you want? I don't believe it. It may take a bit of winding through the court but those kinds of marriages will HAVE to be acknowledged as well.
posted on February 21, 2004 03:29:19 PM new
Why do you think you deserve to be equal?
If you really were in LOVE, then no piece of paper will make any difference... Straights that just live together get no more benefit than queers living together...
Marriage is between a man and woman..
This is just grandstanding at its finest... and it will blow back in the queers faces...
Gov Arnold is taking steps against SF and no marriage there will be recognized outside of the state. They a just served to polarize more people against them.
Actions like this take time to show the long term effects, you can't be so naive as to keep saying how did this harm you in anyway? It hasn't even been a week...
I do feel that anyone arrested in SF as long as the city is breaking the law should have free reign of what they do, no police at all.
Oh and Helen, you dumb b*tch, get your threads straight... besides that POS deserve no consideration...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
"Don't let'em jew you down!"
posted on February 21, 2004 04:04:43 PM new
I truly admire logansdad for his calm approach when discussing this subject. The questions asked by him make this discussion a bit different than previous ones on this topic.
It makes me wonder how many that rush to judgment and proclaim that gay marriage is wrong, have even questioned themselves as to why they feel as they do. I'm not talking about the ones posting here, I'm talking about everyone, everywhere.
posted on February 21, 2004 04:16:20 PM new
"I truly admire logansdad for his calm approach when discussing this subject."
I'll second that, Kiara! If this was 'my' issue, y'all know I would've ranted and cereal-boxed and flamed non-stop since Page One
Krafty, the gay people I've known are gay because they are; the people opposed to (or horrified by) gay people are because they are. It really doesn't matter where they get the fuel for their opposition, imo. In reality, in most Americans' daily lives, the bible is not the basis for forming opinions on social issues. Most 'decent' Americans, however, do have at least one bible in the house. It's a great leveler of wonky table legs and noisy refrigerators...
posted on February 21, 2004 04:23:04 PM new
"I truly admire logansdad for his calm approach when discussing this subject"
I'll agree with you on that. I was just thinking about that same thing earlier. Though I disagree with him I do find myself looking forward to his posts. he presents his ideas in a thoughtful calm manner and he does make you think.
In contrast, I agree with much of what twelvepole says but I find myself cringing when he uses the word queer or as above calls someone a b*tch. I think it weakens your arguement to resort to name calling. There isn't, in my opinion, a reason to make someone feel bad or belittle them.
I don't think that homosexuals are any more likely to engage in polygamy than heterosexuals either. If you accept one you must accept them all. how could you not?
posted on February 21, 2004 04:30:56 PM new
Because this particular issue is about weddings between TWO PEOPLE, Shoes. It's only you and Twelvepole and EAG who continue to skew the topic by rolling out ever-wonkier versions of who might get married if TWO gay people get married.
Your (and others' ) digressions have nothing to do with GAY MARRIAGE, but they say a sh!tload about your illogical minds and inability to think rationally.
posted on February 21, 2004 04:50:12 PM new
Logans asked a question. He asked if anyone has a reason other than religious why gay marriage would be wrong. Unless I misread I didn't see him state anything about only giving answers or reasons that meet with some kind of approval. I don't think it's any digression. I gave my thoughts on the subject. I don't believe it's illogical at all. There is a court case right now with polygamists suing so they too will be able to marry. I have heard bisexuals who also would like to be able to marry both of their partners and plan to fight for that in court as well. Granted the bisexual was waiting to see how the gay marriage worked out before starting any kind of court case but they were hopeful it was made legal as he felt it would almost certainly guarantee his case successful.
I think I brought up some valid points. They seemed valid to the polygamist and the bisexual. Why should they not be allowed to marry? Simply because marriage has always, traditionally been between two people? If we change tradition for one set of people (gays) then why can we not change it for another set (polygamists or bisexuals)? They could make the same case of discrimination. They can also say they just want to be allowed to be with who they love and have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to insurance or hospital rights. I don't see how anyone could say gays can have those rights but the others can't.
I do appreciate your taking the time to acknowlege my post. I could do without the insults but if that's the only way you can communicate then I suppose I'll just have to overlook it and assume you're working on it.
posted on February 21, 2004 04:50:46 PM new
My last post in this thread.
logansdad said:
Those in favor of gay marriages are in favor because they want equal rights, want the ability to have the same benfits that straight couples have in a marriage, want to be recognized as having a loving committed union.
They can have equal rights, the ability to have the same benefits that straight couples have in a marriage, be recognized as having a loving committed union.
BUT it doesn't have to fall under the traditional term called 'marriage'. It can be called just what it is being called, civil unions. They have the exact same 'rights' that way.
That takes nothing away from the millions [majority] of American's who want the one man one woman to remain the defination of what a marriage has always meant.
Some people just aren't willing to compromise and be satisfied with having the equal "rights" they claim they so want. If this is really about having equal 'rights' a civil union does just that.
Those unwilling to accept 'civil unions' as a way of enjoying equal 'rights', imo have another agenda.
posted on February 21, 2004 05:03:59 PM new
LOL, Helen!
Shoes, your continued attempts to turn the question of TWO GAY PEOPLE MARRYING into one of some sort of floodgate this-and-that-marrying really does point out your illogical thinking. Sorry if that offends you or if you feel that having your ill-logic called what it is qualifies as 'name calling'. Frankly, if I wanted to call you names, there are many far more succinct, apt, highly descriptive words I could use.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
