#205459 - 19/02/2004 11:11
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Chimaera]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
as they would both be capable of producing offspring the point is, the enviornment for raising children is abolished. Both sexes plays different roles in upbringing, and any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad. look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205460 - 19/02/2004 11:12
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: peter]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...
You'd be amazed at the number of people inside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution... 
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205461 - 19/02/2004 11:14
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yet Christians also always argue, ``Well, the orginal text said ...''. See any of the agruments on this board about ``Thou shalt not kill.''
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205462 - 19/02/2004 11:17
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
That would be discrimination.
Even if that was supposed to be humor, it was one of the most ignorant comments I have ever heard.
Since it's obvious you don't understand the word you used, let's show you a definition:
dis·crim·i·na·tion (n).
1 - The act of discriminating.
2 - The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3 - Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: (ex. racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. )
You may want to note number three as especially meaningful here. Whether or not you like it, it's still discrimination even if the person isn't like you. And yes, even if they're gay.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205463 - 19/02/2004 11:21
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce
But does the result of the dysfunction come from being in an environment where the parents ofttimes hate each other and use the kids as weapons or from divorce itself. I would think that children brought up in a loving home, no matter the sexes of the parents, would have a better chance than a lot of kids out there.
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205464 - 19/02/2004 11:28
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Daria]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so. take one of the oldest translated books. homer's illiad. you think that it should be discounted as a classic and thrown out because it has gone thru someone's translation and 3000 years of errant copying? no, we would expect that all the meanings would be well preserved, even today. now, granted that the illiad isn't the basis of anyone's beliefs, do you think scribes copying and others translating what they consider a holy book would take the utmost care to do it correctly? or even better, to take it up to something we all can relate to on this BBS... even IF there is an error, or there is a truth distorted intentionally, do you think that the peer review of other believers who read subsequently will not catch it? look at the open source movement.
bottom line, anyone who believes that the bible is the infallable Word of God would have faith that He would preserve it throughout the years.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205465 - 19/02/2004 11:33
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 10/09/2002
Posts: 285
Loc: DFW Area, Texas, US
|
the enviornment for raising children is abolished
I don't see how.
Both sexes plays different roles in upbringing, and any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad
I think it is more likely to say that the lack of a balanced upbringing will result in a messed up kid, there will be nothing to say that one of the women taking on the gender role of a male and providing exactly the same upbring that a man would, would screw a kid up any more or less than actually having a man as a father. (and no I am not talking about trying to look like a man, I mean providing the same emotianal and disiplinary input a man would).
look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce.
Which is generally then a single parent family, resulting in half of the time and support a child would get from two parents regardless of gender.
Plus there is the emotional distress that a divorce places on children, which would not exist with two commited partners of any sex, so I think the divorce argument is a red herring and proves nothing either way.
_________________________
Mark.
[blue]MKI, MKII & MKIIa, all Blue, and all Mine![/blue]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205466 - 19/02/2004 11:34
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
do you think scribes copying and others translating what they consider a holy book would take the utmost care to do it correctly? No. I believe that they would insert their own political views, just as the original authors of the Bible did. even IF there is an error, or there is a truth distorted intentionally, do you think that the peer review of other believers who read subsequently will not catch it What peer review? There were a tiny number of people that could read those languages, and they were all employed by the church.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205467 - 19/02/2004 11:35
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/07/2001
Posts: 721
Loc: Boston, MA USA
|
Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married
Ugh. Jerz, this is not a personal attack I promise.
But this is the kind of backward, ignorant bullsh it that I can't fuc king stand.
Can't be married??? By who's law? Who the hell is a person to even have an opinion if a couple can get married or not? How does it effect YOUR LIFE IN ANY WAY? Give me one good reason that does not have a religious background.
So are you saying that if I marry a woman and don't have children (by choice or not) then the two of us don't have a family?
Please wake up to the 21st century and the last 2000 years of human evolution and realize that life is a process, we are not the same as 2000 years ago, and in order to survive humans must change. Opinions must change. We must redefine ourselves all the time, and understand that if we continue to hold on tight to what was relevant 200 or 2000 years ago, the only thing we do is hold ourselves back.
_________________________
---------
//matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205468 - 19/02/2004 11:36
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Chimaera]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Not to mention the gay men and women that enter loveless herero marriages in order to conform.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205469 - 19/02/2004 11:39
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
``Well, the orginal text said ...'' common misconception is that very statement... truth is, we don't have the original text anymore. it was lost during the churh's persecution by Rome between 100-300 AD. so the oldest (but not necessarily the most preserved) is dated about 400. but we do have the writings of early church fathers, and they quoted a lot. it is said that from the quotes alone, you can reconstruct all of the new testament except for 17 lines. and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls also bolsters the claim that the texts are well preserved. direct comparison from the 2000 year old scrolls with today's tranlations show almost NO distortion in the old testament. [edit]took out the link, because i just realized that it pointed to a KJVonly site. stupid infighting within the church, along with creation vs theistic evolution.[/edit]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205470 - 19/02/2004 11:44
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
That's irrelevant to my argument. Now the Christians are arguing that the current translation is valid, when, in other circumstances, they claim it's not.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205471 - 19/02/2004 11:49
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Now the Christians are arguing that the current translation is valid, when, in other circumstances, they claim it's not.
They have to have this contradiction. It allows them to say that gay people don't deserve rights, and at the same time ignore the fact that the bible shows that their god disagrees with any disobedience to your "master" if you're a slave.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205472 - 19/02/2004 11:52
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Pick and choose, my friend, pick and choose.
Of course, in order to believe in any of the Bible you have to pick and choose, seeing as how it contradicts itself much of the time.
Edited by wfaulk (19/02/2004 11:55)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205473 - 19/02/2004 11:55
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
addict
Registered: 11/01/2001
Posts: 579
|
Belezeebub comes out from behind the wood shed wearing a grass skirt and having finished teaseing the lawn mower.
I disagree between my mother and father I have been through 8 devorces and I came out just fine. no issues at all, completly normal.
_________________________
______________________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of Network
Administrators, for they are subtle and quick to
anger.
______________________________________
Worlds Lamest Wb Site (mine)
http://home.comcast.net/~jlipchitz/
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205474 - 19/02/2004 12:02
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
any disobedience to your "master" if you're a slave. you forget the fact that God also intended that all slaves go free in seven years. over here, He defines slaves as someone selling himself to a master. is that what all of us working folk do today?
1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to
e done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow
Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother,
because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You
may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your
brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the
land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will
richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful
to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your
God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations
but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will
rule over you.
11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land
that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted
toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him
whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The
seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show
ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then
appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give
generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this
the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you
put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore
I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor
and needy in your land.
12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you
six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you
release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally
from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the
LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt
and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command
today (Deuteronomy 15:1-15).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205475 - 19/02/2004 12:08
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: image]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Maybe you misunderstood... I wasn't talking about the Israelites and the Egyptians. I was talking about God and Christians.
Sure seems like a master / servant relationship to me.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205476 - 19/02/2004 12:20
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: ithoughti]
|
addict
Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
|
Ugh. Jerz, this is not a personal attack I promise.
Can't be married??? By who's law? In my opinion... the laws of nature.
Who the hell is a person to even have an opinion if a couple can get married or not? Hey, don't get mad at me beacuse two male elephants can't produce offspring  . I have no problems with civil unions; just believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
So are you saying that if I marry a woman and don't have children (by choice or not) then the two of us don't have a family? No, not at all. Whether you have children or not is totally your choice.
in order to survive humans must change. No, in order for the human race to survive it would need to reproduce. Reproducing takes a man and a woman.
<<<puts on flame suit and runs>>>
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205477 - 19/02/2004 12:24
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31594
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Of course, in order to believe in any of the Bible you have to pick and choose, seeing as how it contradicts itself much of the time. Did anyone watching the "Firefly" episodes like the scene where River started "fixing" the Shepherd's bible? I cracked up. Even his response was cool in its own way.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205478 - 19/02/2004 12:26
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/07/2001
Posts: 721
Loc: Boston, MA USA
|
in order for the human race to survive it would need to reproduce
I guess I meant more like "survive intellectually" Personally I think that there are already to many of us.
_________________________
---------
//matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205479 - 19/02/2004 12:26
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/04/2002
Posts: 770
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
and the obligatory apolgetics link
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205480 - 19/02/2004 13:00
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: lastdan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Wow, amazing all the fun I’ve been missing! So many points to address, so here goes.
religion has no baring on this discussion
While marriage may not be religious in nature to everyone, there is no doubt that it is VERY religious to a lot of people. Therefore religion is necessarily part of the discussion.
Marriage does not belong to the church/Atheists get married all the time/etc.
True, but you can’t fault the church for being upset when a sacred tradition of the church gets redefined as something else. It necessarily means that one group is going to lose its concept of the word. Imagine if the government started giving benefits for those who have been baptized (never mind that this is a ridiculous example, the point is that baptism is a religious “rite” on par with marriage). Then the state decides to redefine baptism to include all those who’ve ever jumped in a swimming pool. Of course the church would object, saying the government has no right to redefine the term. This is the way the church feels about marriage. The church would claim the concept goes back to Adam and Even, the very beginnings of mankind, and that it was a religious institution then. Of course, the non-Church will disagree and there’s the rub. The bottom line is that it IS going to happen, and the Church IS going to feel betrayed by it. “State” marriage and “Church” marriage should have been separate concepts long ago, but they’re not, and that’s just the way it is.
The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals
It did, to the Jews at least. But there are three distinct parts of the OT Law. Some laws were ceremonial, relating to the worship practices to show honor to God. Some were governmental, relating to how peace was to be kept and what was lawful or unlawful for “God’s Chosen People”. The last type of law was moral law, which directly relates to the character God expected his people to have. The first two types of law do not directly correlate to today’s world because we are no longer in the Jewish religious or political systems. We are still, however, to obey the moral aspects, which dictate our character. In addition, while the first two parts of the law are not directly applicable, there are still things they tell us about the character of God, and those “moral” aspects must still be followed.
The penalty of death levied against many different sins (not just homosexuality) was a function of the governmental law of the Jewish people so it does not translate into today’s world under a secular (or at the very least, non-Jewish) rule. However, we can still understand that God views homosexual acts as sinful.
Separation of Church and State
The first amendment was put into place to protect the rights of churches and religious organization from persecution by the state. The state was not to enforce what people should/should not believe; it was up to the individual. Many Christians today feel that the first amendment has been twisted to mean that the state should be protected from the church; the reversal of what was intended. I think the amenders had every intention of religion affecting the governing of the United States.
In either case (denying or supporting same-sex marriage) the state is not interfering with the church. Church’s have been marrying same-sex couples for quite a while, and no ruling of the state is going to change that. Likewise the state will never tell a church that it must recognize a same-sex marriage if the church doesn’t want to.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205481 - 19/02/2004 13:08
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
baring bearing. You need to go back to Word. marriage may not be religious in nature to everyone Right. And for those people, religion should have no impact on it. If those gay people that want to get married religiously have issues with their churches about it, then they should take it up with their churches. you can’t fault the church for being upset when a sacred tradition of the church gets redefined as something else Perhaps not, but it happened over two hundred years ago, and has evolved away from the church ever since, largely without a peep. Too late now. Not to mention that marriage existed long before it was a Christian sacrament. The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals Irrelevant tangent, really. No one is proposing that we kill all the gay folks. Separation of Church and State Also a fairly irrelevant tangent. Howver, it does say, or at least strongly imply, that no church should surmount another. What if there was a church that promoted gay life as a positive? Would your Church overrule that? If so, why?
Edited by wfaulk (19/02/2004 13:13)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205482 - 19/02/2004 13:23
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
No. I believe that they would insert their own political views, just as the original authors of the Bible did.
Personal speculation, I presume?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205483 - 19/02/2004 13:29
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
You need to go back to Word. Drat! Irrelevant tangent, really. True, just had to address the question. Separation of Church and State Also a fairly irrelevant tangent. Yeah, which was actually my point. What if there was a church that promoted gay life as a positive? Well, in fact there are Would your Church overrule that? No, a church is free to do whatever it wants, including promoting homosexuality. And the state should stay out of it entirely. I'll bet we agree on that, even.
I've been mostly trying to give a "this is how this all feels from within the church" kind of persepctive. I haven't really commented on my position as much as my feelings. Honestly, I don't want same-sex marriages because I think it's going to be bad for our country in the end. However, if it's what the people of the U.S. want, we live in a free country where the people decide, not the law of God. The only control the church has over this is by guiding the morals of the people through influence, not by telling them what they legellay can and can't do. Many Christians argue for Legislative Morality, but I'm not one of them. Compliance with God's law is a heart issue, not one of law. Half of Paul's writing in the New Testament was to argue this very concept. Or at least that's my take.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205484 - 19/02/2004 13:40
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Now we're back on track. I mean, I think it's fair for religion to influence people who influence our government, I suppose. There's obviously some sort of limit at what level that can occur. You can certainly vote for things based on your religious beliefs, but a President creating a Doctrine based on religious beliefs would be wrong, I think. I'm not sure where that line lies, but it's there somewhere. Regardless, that's all tangential.
How would it be ``bad for our country''? Do you think that the legal recognition of gay marriage will create more gay people? If so, how does more gay people equate to badness? If so, why do you think more gay people will be created? Will they be turned by the lure of legitimate homosexuality? If they would, wouldn't they be gay anyway, just repressing? And wouldn't it be preferable to avoid making those people's lives miserable? Wouldn't it be better to allow them to be as happy as possible rather than confining them?
Edited by wfaulk (19/02/2004 13:42)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205485 - 19/02/2004 13:57
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
<thunderous applause for Bitt>
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205486 - 19/02/2004 13:58
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Disclaimer: It goes without saying (yet I’ll say it anyway) that these are my personal beliefs here, and I don’t expect others to agree or hold them just because I do.
How would it be ``bad for our country''? I think that God blesses and punishes countries based on how they follow the moral code that He has outlined. So by publicly promoting something against His precepts, we (the US) are turning away from Him with our actions. wouldn't they be gay anyway, just repressing? I think that not all behavior that we are inclined toward is healthy. Case in point: I was very inclined toward sexual activity during my teenage and college years, yet I abstained until I was married. I feel that this was a very healthy denial of my urges and has yielded great benefits. Now granted this is not the same situation because I was denying my impulses for a time where a homosexual would be denying impulses for their entire lives, but the principal of denying what “feels right” is there. I do have struggles with sin that I fight every day that will likely continue until the day I die. God rewards me for my resistance to sin, and is forgiving when I fall. What I must not do is commit blatant sin and expect it to be overlooked or condoned. And wouldn't it be preferable to avoid making those people's lives miserable? Wouldn't it be better to allow them to be as happy as possible rather than confining them? Happiness is nice, but it is not the end goal for which humans should aspire, at least in my mind. I’ve seen way too many people pursue happiness and fall deeper and deeper into depression. The happiest people I’ve ever met are those who deny themselves all of their desires and instead pursue the things of God. I know that doesn’t track with your worldview, but it’s been a consistent theme through people I’ve observed and my own experiences.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205487 - 19/02/2004 13:59
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
(sorry to pull back to a tangent)
I'd posit that the separation of church and state was as much, if not more, for the protection of the state _from_ the church(es).
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205488 - 19/02/2004 14:20
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I think that God blesses and punishes countries ... Okay, so, magic. I have a hard time arguing against that.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index