#205399 - 19/02/2004 01:18
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
I don't understand why people feel that their religious beliefs should affect other peoples lives.
Because if people are allowed to think freely, make their own decisions, love and wed someone of the same sex, or point out that it seems like the sun (not to mention the other planets) actually rotate around the Sun, they're certainly a heretic. Gotta keep the sheep-ple in line....
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205400 - 19/02/2004 01:19
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
But why is it that as a religious person you (or anyone else who cares to reply) can't separate these concepts?
I have, just not in a way that many people like. "Marriage" occures in a church. "Civil-Union" occures in a courthouse.
Did you read the quote from C.S. Lewis? I though he summed it up well. I need to get a better picture of what you are missunderstanding before I can better explain things.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205401 - 19/02/2004 01:21
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
<Ahem>
point out that it seems like the sun (not to mention the other planets) actually rotate around the Sun
Just calling a low blow. Let's not sling insults here. Especialy not inaccurate ones.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205402 - 19/02/2004 01:24
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
The Chruch persecuted Galileo for his belief in the Earth rotates around the Sun, among other discoveries.
True? Or not?
If true, why is it a low blow? Because it shows the Church is fallable?
My point is, the Church has been horribly wrong before. Again and again.
And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205403 - 19/02/2004 01:29
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
True, it is a low blow because it happend 400 years ago.
My point is, the Church has been horribly wrong before. Again and again.
Yes, the church has. And when it has been wrong it has always had a hard time backing itself up with scripture.
And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?
The "world" does not have to listen to the church if it doesn't want to. We arn't "imposing" anything here. I thought I made that clear. We just want to be very clear about the termenology that is being thrown around.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205404 - 19/02/2004 01:35
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
True, it is a low blow because it happend 400 years ago.
Yes it did. And the Church only took 383 years to figure out that they made a mistake....
Sorry, I didn't type my full thought. Copernicus. Took the Church 383 years to forgive him.
Edited by webroach (19/02/2004 01:37)
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205405 - 19/02/2004 01:36
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
I have, just not in a way that many people like. "Marriage" occures in a church. "Civil-Union" occures in a courthouse.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that some churches definition of marriage won't match yours, so you are really saying that marriage is a Protestant (or your religion of choice) union so you need to refine your viewpoint to take into account that somewhere there is bound to be an institution calling itself a church which happens to approve of same sex marriages. At this point you are defining marriage in a fairly narrow manner and it seems simpler to define by context. A couple can be married by law and entitled to all benefits their-in without having a marriage that is necessarily approved by a specific church.
Did you read the quote from C.S. Lewis? I though he summed it up well. I need to get a better picture of what you are missunderstanding before I can better explain things.
I'll admit to being one drink past clearly deciphering that quote so maybe I am not reading it the same way you are. From my viewpoint it is saying that the most important thing about marriage is being committed and faithful to ones partner and that the religious/cultural implications are secondary. I would agree with that, but I don't see how it makes your point.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205406 - 19/02/2004 01:38
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
BTW:
Because it shows the Church is fallable?
The church (distinct from God Himslef) is fallable.
I'm fallable. Make up your own mind about what I say.
And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?
Don't. Get a Bible, read it, and then live the Christian life as it was lived almost 2000 years ago, before there was a "church".
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205407 - 19/02/2004 01:44
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
Fair enough, but keep in mind that some churches definition of marriage won't match yours
Your spot-on with what I mean here, and yes,I have kept that in mind. I imagin that if what I concive were to take place (ha!) then some denominations would acknowledge marriages performed by some others, and some not etc.
I'll admit to being one drink past clearly deciphering that quote
Maybe I'm making too big of a leap in applying it to what we are talking about. My main point is that homosexual couples want the "respectability" that comes with a traditional marriage, as well as the rights. By all means, let them have the rights, but they can't have the respectibility (at least not in the church's eyes) because they are not following the main requirments for getting married.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205408 - 19/02/2004 01:48
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
About homosexuality
Leviticus 20:30
"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."
About slavery
Colossians 3:22
"slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters."
1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves submit to your masters, not only those who are good and gentle, but also the perverse [ones]."
I've read the bible. It's one of the most violent, hateful, vindictive books I've ever read. Sorry if you feel like that's an attack. It's not. It's my opinion.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205409 - 19/02/2004 01:56
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
About slavery
Colossians 3:22
"slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters."
1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves submit to your masters, not only those who are good and gentle, but also the perverse [ones]."
That was written to a people in a socioty in which slavery was an every day part of life. Neither Paul nor Peter is condoning slavery. They are saying that if you are a slave, then God does not condone you revolting against your masters.
Why? Because we should at all times strive to live at peace with one another. Because love (even..... especialy.......when the person does not love you back) is the first and second commandment. Because slavery, although abhorrent, to a saved soul that will spend eternity in heaven is not the worst thing in the world (I am by no means condoning it or saying it would be enjoyable.)
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205410 - 19/02/2004 01:59
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
Oh, and Leviticus is a book of Jewish laws. It also includes details about how a man should wear his facial hair. What kind of clothes to wear, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm not Jewish. For more info, see Romans Ch. 5-8 (since you have your Bible so handy  )
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205411 - 19/02/2004 02:00
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Odd. There seems to be a distinct lack of a response regarding the part where your holy book calls for the death of homosexuals. Care to respond?
I am by no means condoning it or saying it would be enjoyable.
No, you aren't. Your diety is.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205412 - 19/02/2004 02:02
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
No, you aren't. Your diety is.
No, He isn't. And I just clearly addressed that.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205413 - 19/02/2004 02:02
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
My main point is that homosexual couples want the "respectability" that comes with a traditional marriage
You know, I think we just came full circle We are back to arguing the definition of traditional marriage which to you is synonymous with religious marriage and to me just means a union of two people. And that is the crux of the point I was trying to make. There are plenty of words in the english language that mean different things based on context and personal viewpoint. To me it is clear that marriage in the context of any discussion of law should mean a union of two people as it pertains to legal issues. I don't understand why people need to drag in the religious baggage.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205414 - 19/02/2004 02:05
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
No, He isn't. And I just clearly addressed that.
Fair enough. He just doesn't want slaves doing anything to change their lot in life.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205415 - 19/02/2004 02:05
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
To me it is clear that marriage in the context of any discussion of law should mean a union of two people as it pertains to legal issues. I don't understand why people need to drag in the religious baggage.
Exactly, and since marriage comes with religious baggage attached and
There are plenty of words in the english language that mean different things based on context and personal viewpoint.
then there should be no problem finding a new one, right?
I think "civil-union" has an excelent ring to it, don't you?
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205416 - 19/02/2004 02:15
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
I've read the bible. It's one of the most violent, hateful, vindictive books I've ever read. Sorry if you feel like that's an attack. It's not. It's my opinion.
This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document. I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on. The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important, you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205417 - 19/02/2004 02:19
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
then there should be no problem finding a new one, right?
Primarily to continue an amusing argument... You still didn't explain why it matters so much to you. I think I have done a passable job of explaining exactly why a singular definition of the word marriage is not important to many people. Surely you have something better than "we had it first" to explain why it is important to you 
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205418 - 19/02/2004 02:20
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important, you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.
Excelent.
I don't know if that is a compliment in regards to me, but I definatly agree with it.
And Dave, in regards to that, I want you to know that I don't. I know things can get a little heated in here sometimes, but this is just debate. I harbor no ill feelings twards you what so ever.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205419 - 19/02/2004 02:23
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
Surely you have something better than "we had it first" to explain why it is important to you
You mean that isn't good enough?
I understand what you mean, but it is really all the connotations that go along with the name, all the years of history and books written about it, all the implied meanings that I (we) are after.
EDIT:
Or let me put it this way: the way I see it, we just want to contenue using the meaning the word has had for thousands of years and you (not you explicitly, I'm not blaming) want to give it a new definition altogether.
Edited by m6400 (19/02/2004 02:27)
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205420 - 19/02/2004 02:26
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document
This doesn't work. The book is what it is. Rewriting it to make it a "kindler gentler" bible doesn't really do much for it's validity. And if it's tainted by the people who wrote the document, how can anyone's interpretation be any less tainted?
I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on.
Uhhh... so....a person's religion....err....doesn't have to believe or follow the ....
...the DOCUMENTS IT'S BASED ON?
The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important
Agreed. 100%
you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.
Hrmm... Am I to assume I'm not allowed to have religious beliefs because I...
(a) Don't follow a belief system that is (in my opinion) rife with conflict, contradiction and prejudice, and
(b) Don't constantly point out what my belief system is, how it works, and why people should accept it / understand it?
Forgive me, but I DO have beliefs. But they're my beliefs. And to assume that I have none because I don't follow Christianity is quite wrong.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205421 - 19/02/2004 02:28
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
I harbor no ill feelings twards you what so ever.
Marcus, if I were to harbor ill will towards you, I would already be lost.
If we were at the bar I'd be buying the beer.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205422 - 19/02/2004 02:30
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
contenue using the meaning the word has had for thousands of years
Hey! I got flagged for referencing somthing from only 400 years ago!
What gives!!
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205423 - 19/02/2004 02:38
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
Hey! I got flagged for referencing somthing from only 400 years ago!
The difference is a single point in time vs. a contenuation (all the points over the past several thousand years.....including last year.....10 years ago....etc.).
Now, make mine a Guinness and the next rounds on me.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205424 - 19/02/2004 02:38
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document
This doesn't work. The book is what it is. Rewriting it to make it a "kindler gentler" bible doesn't really do much for it's validity. And if it's tainted by the people who wrote the document, how can anyone's interpretation be any less tainted?
Oh come on, I know you don't believe that. See your comment above regarding actions speaking louder than words. That applies to written word as well. I am not saying I agree with the bible, but there are good bits in there. "Do unto others..." is a great belief wether it comes from the bible or is just realized as an obvious good thing. The point I was getting at is the bible is arbitrary and contradictory (at least to an impartial observer like me) and I have no problems with someone being religious and following that parts of the bible that seem reasonable to me as long as they are sensible enough to realize that some parts of it are wrong (for whatever reason).
I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on.
Uhhh... so....a person's religion....err....doesn't have to believe or follow the ....
...the DOCUMENTS IT'S BASED ON?
What I was trying to get at is that a person isn't the sum of their religious beliefs. Same argument as above.
you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.
Hrmm... Am I to assume I'm not allowed to have religious beliefs because I...
(a) Don't follow a belief system that is (in my opinion) rife with conflict, contradiction and prejudice, and
(b) Don't constantly point out what my belief system is, how it works, and why people should accept it / understand it?
Forgive me, but I DO have beliefs. But they're my beliefs. And to assume that I have none because I don't follow Christianity is quite wrong.
Nope, I was oversimplifying for clarity and I apologize. I should have said something along the lines of 'because your beliefs aren't the same as theirs'.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205425 - 19/02/2004 02:40
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
I think this is the nub of the problem. It's a situation familiar to anyone in software engineering: the same routine has been doing two, not actually very similar, jobs, for years on end and separating the two becomes very difficult, as the whole thing means different things to different clients. For what it's worth, it's not this way in other countries. I know that in Mexico, your church / religious wedding has no legal meaning whatsoever. You then show up in court and have a J.P. do a legally binding ceremony for you. Same sort of deal in both the US and Canada. The church/religious wedding means absolutely zip. Nada. Zilch. Aside from the religious context, that is. Your marriage will not be recognized by the state at all, unless it is performed by someone legally capable of performing marriages. That person can be a Justice of the Peace, or it can be the minister of some church who has a legal licence to marry people (my father is one of these latter -- he was actually given a wallet card by the province, designating him as legally able to perform weddings). No matter which of these two actually marries you, there is even a particular phrase that must be stated during the ceremony for that marriage to be legally recognized ("by the power vested in me by the province of Ontario").
That said...
I can't actually find a place in the bible where it says that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Maybe I'm looking up the wrong terms in the concordance. Anyone care to point out the relevant verse?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205426 - 19/02/2004 02:47
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
I can't actually find a place in the bible where it says that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.
Well it always talks about marriage as being between a male and female, and it forbids homosexual intercourse. And since the Bible makes it clear that marriage is intended for the creating a sutible enviroment for the begating and raising of childeren (since you can love someone without being married to them or having sex with them) then I think from that alone we can safely infer that homosexual marriages would be frowned uppon. But no, I don't know of a specific verse. I'll ask my betters when I get a chance.
Same sort of deal in both the US and Canada.......
Right, and now that the rules are changing, we would like for people to stop calling them the same thing as well. That's all.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205427 - 19/02/2004 02:48
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
I have no problems with someone being religious and following that parts of the bible that seem reasonable to me as long as they are sensible enough to realize that some parts of it are wrong
I would absolutly weep with joy to head a Christian say this. My point was more that if you base a religion on the concept that your scripture is a historical, factual document, you cannot change it without admitting that it's not totally factual / historical.
What I was trying to get at is that a person isn't the sum of their religious beliefs.
I would agree. I would also say this isn't really the same concept as the statement I was responding to. I believe if you join a group, you are bound by the groups beliefs. Or, you leave the group. If you join a Christian church, you should behave in the manner dictated by that particular belief system. If you feel you are a Christian, yet feel that no organized church is a good fit, you can always practice on your own.
I should have said something along the lines of 'because your beliefs aren't the same as theirs'
Thank you, and apology is (of course) accepted.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205428 - 19/02/2004 02:50
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
you (not you explicitly, I'm not blaming) want to give it a new definition altogether.
Hmm, it seems to me that people where living together in some sort of loving union before any Christian religion defined the term marriage. You (not you, blah, blah ) may have invented the word, but my sentiment predates yours.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index