|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 178 of 293:
| 
Dec 15 04:43 UTC 2003 |
Russ, you're misinterpreting it -- though I don't think marriage is a
prerequisite to a stable, committed relationship.
What I meant is that marriage is not just for having children, and should not
be looked at as such.
|
twenex
|
|
response 179 of 293:
|
Dec 15 09:22 UTC 2003 |
I didn't threaten your life. I've got far better things to do than
dealing that way with people like you. Like educating them. Or
watching tv. Or pissing on flies.
Presumably if marriage is simply a means to the end of producing
children, one should invalidate all marriages which do not produce
kids.
I'm Henry VIII I am, I am, I'm Henry VIII I am....
|
twenex
|
|
response 180 of 293:
|
Dec 15 10:07 UTC 2003 |
Bru:
You said that Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians,
but that Jews' and Muslims' interpretation is wrong. That only leaves
Christians to be right.
Reasons why gay marriage should be legalized:
1. We are moving towards equality of gays with heterosexuals. In order
for that process to be complete, ALL rights, including marriage, must
therefore be accorded gay couples if we are to claim that they truly
have equal rights in law. Equal rights in law a a necessary and vital
step in promoting equality in society, since it leave those who would
deny rights based on the law without a leg to stand on.
2. Christianity and Islam demand respect for infidels and sinners, as
they believe they can be redeemed. (Does Judaism preach the same
thing? I was always under the impression that Judaism dpes not attempt
to bring Gentiles into the fold, however tolerant individuals or
communities of Jews may be.) Therefore, and especially since it is up
to God to decide who goes down below, a true Christian or Muslim will
not condeemn a man or woman to ostracism simply because of their
homosexuality, any more than because of their pagan religion.
3. The point of state secularism is to promote religious toleration;
therefore the question of gay marriage being legalized by the civil
courts should be divorced (for want of a better word) from the
question of its legality according to church law.
4. Church law is not immutable; the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was
developed by the early Church after the death of Jesus, whilst the
doctrine of Papal infallibility dates from the 11th century, or a
little earlier.
5. There is no question in mymind that the Bible was not meant to be
taken literaqlly, but was meant as ae "handbook" for better human
relationships and a metaphorical means to understand the world. Thus
the liberal (to use hte word w/o its political connotations)
interpretation of "an eye for an eye" as an exhortation to let the
punishment fit the crime, not to pluck out the eye of someone who
blinded someone else. Therefore among thinking Christians, there
should be no objection to discussing the best way of dealing with
homosexuality.
6. Discrimination against gays is an obstacle to their achieving their
full potential, and therefore as a libertarian I cannot help being
implacably opposed. (Most of you will have noticed that when I oppose
something, I oppose it implacably anyhow.)
7. Even if you do not accept #1, equality before the law3 of all
citizens is one of the basic tenets of a liberal democracy; therefore,
by accepting #7, you must accept #1. If you do not accept #1, or by
extension #7, you hold a viewpoint that is anti-American. (Those who
forget what relevance this has to an Englishman should remember that
provincial legislators and delegates to the Continental Congress at
first demanded the law be administered according to "the rights of
Englishmen", changing this to "natural rights"; theefore their
struggle for liberation was basedon a desire to restore those rights
they believe they had under English law; natural, since the Colonies
were founded by the English, and even then, a large proportion of
Americans wee born in England.
|
bru
|
|
response 181 of 293:
|
Dec 15 14:46 UTC 2003 |
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship the
same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting each other,
SOMBODY has got it wrong!
Therefore among thinking Christians, there should be no objection to
discussing the best way of dealing with homosexuality.
twenex, I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal
with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it. they don't want
to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it. They do not want to know
what goes on between homosexuals in the beadroom, they don't want to think
about it.
Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something the church
puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. As such, they cannot
tolerate it being debased by ordering them to bless what they view as a sin.
I know, I know, no one is ordering them to bless anything. But that is how
they feel it is being pushed. How many of these homosexual couples are going
to want to get married in church? How many of them are going to push their
respective diocese to accpt them because the law says it is now legal? How
long before some church finds itself sued becuse they are discriminating
against gays by not letting them get married in the chapel? (don't laugh,
we have seen people sue over other things equally as ridiculous)
And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible that the
law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing so, will force
the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize it? In effect, is that
not the state making a law with regards to religion, and a violation of the
constitution?
My personal preference is that we accept civil unions with all teh rights and
privelages of a monogomous couple, but that it bextended beyond sexual
relationship. Why should I have to F--k someone to have a civil relationship
and extend to them benefits from my medical insurance?
|
scott
|
|
response 182 of 293:
|
Dec 15 16:35 UTC 2003 |
So which is the "one true" religion, then? Which sect, and which version of
the holy book?
|
gull
|
|
response 183 of 293:
|
Dec 15 16:56 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:181:
> I suppose the problem is that most christians do "not" want to deal
> with homosexuality. They don't want anythign to do with it.
> they don't want to talk about it, they do not want to hear about it.
Funny, they sure spend an awful lot of time talking about it. If they
don't want to deal with it, why do they spend so much time trying to
control homosexuals' behaviour?
> Most christians also view marriage as a sacrament. it is something
> the church puts a blessing on. IT IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.
But it's also a secular contract. That's part of the problem here.
There are really two different concepts, which are being linked
artificially. Part of this is historic, and part of it is political.
By linking secular marriage and religious marriage, it becomes much more
acceptable to try to deny marriage to homosexuals -- you're "defending
the purity of religion" instead of just discriminating against people
whose choice of mate you don't like.
> And down that slippery slope in the far, far future, is it possible
> that the law will say that a church cannot discriminate, and by doing
> so, will force the church to either change its beliefs, or penalize
> it?
No, this is why we have seperation of church and state. However, this
is a good reason for Christians to think long and hard about whether
they want to support things like "faith based initiatives." If you
erase part of the boundary between church and state by letting
government money start funding religious activities, you may eventually
find there are strings attached and that the parts of that boundary that
prevent the government from dictating what religious groups can and
cannot do are getting hazy as well.
Re resp:182: Good question. Not even all Christian denominations agree
about this. I'm curious which Christian denominations bru thinks got it
right, and which denominations he thinks are going to Hell.
|
twenex
|
|
response 184 of 293:
|
Dec 15 17:45 UTC 2003 |
I think I'll just shut up and let gull speak for me.
|
klg
|
|
response 185 of 293:
|
Dec 15 17:56 UTC 2003 |
(This is just way too good to pass up.)
Great Moments in Sex Education by the Massachusetts Supreme Court
An alert (Opinionjournal.com) reader calls our attention to a footnote
No. 23 in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, last month's
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision declaring the traditional
definition of marriage unconstitutional:
It is hardly surprising that civil marriage developed
historically as a means to regulate heterosexual conduct
and to promote child rearing, because until very recently
unassisted heterosexual relations were the only means short
of adoption by which children could come into the world.
|
twenex
|
|
response 186 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:11 UTC 2003 |
Yes, and now we have adoption, legalized gay partnerships, and
artificial insemination, we're free to implement gay marriage. Did we
wait before putting the new inventions of the wheel and the computer
to use?
|
klg
|
|
response 187 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:18 UTC 2003 |
Mr. tweenex-
Go back and read it again.
klg
|
twenex
|
|
response 188 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:21 UTC 2003 |
Only thing that has changd after a second reading is this: Pointing
out that children do not "come into the world" via adoption, but aare
adopted once they've been born.
|
klg
|
|
response 189 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:23 UTC 2003 |
Is English your second language?
|
twenex
|
|
response 190 of 293:
|
Dec 15 18:33 UTC 2003 |
No. Were your parents too poor to buy you the cost-option brain?
As it stands, the quote in #186 only refers to the *customary*
definition of marriage, without alleging that the Constitution outlaws
other definitions of marriage. That which is not specifically
prohibited is allowed, n'est-ce pas?
|
flem
|
|
response 191 of 293:
|
Dec 15 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Way back there, bru said this:
>and down the slippery slope we go...
>
>We discriminate against immoral and illegal activities all the time.
>
>Thats why theft, murder, prostitution, drug use, rape, adn
>child molestation are all illegal. WE discriminate against
>them. Lets just make them all legal.
I really think that this fundamental misunderstanding is at the root of
much of the disagreement on this issue. Bru assumes that we outlaw
murder and so forth because they are immoral. IMO, this is completely
wrong. We outlaw murder and child molestation and such because they
violate the human rights of the victim. Protecting human rights is
pretty much the fundamental purpose of government.
So the question becomes, whose human rights are violated by allowing gay
marriages to be recognized by law? I think that's the real question
that opponents of gay marriage need to answer before their arguments can
be taken seriously.
|
drew
|
|
response 192 of 293:
|
Dec 15 19:56 UTC 2003 |
Re #182: What #183 said: Good question. is there even any hard evidence that
there is a Hell for the denominations in error to go to?
|
twenex
|
|
response 193 of 293:
|
Dec 15 19:57 UTC 2003 |
That's it exactly
|
scott
|
|
response 194 of 293:
|
Dec 15 20:08 UTC 2003 |
Hmmmm... People here are assuming that gay people never reproduce. But what
about the many people who finally conclude that they're really gay, after
having had heterosexual relations and often children? Yes, there are a lot
of children of homosexuals.
|
oval
|
|
response 195 of 293:
|
Dec 15 20:26 UTC 2003 |
..and there's the wanna-be lesbian who mysteriously keeps getting knocked up.
|
twenex
|
|
response 196 of 293:
|
Dec 15 22:22 UTC 2003 |
#193 was in response to #191, although it could justy as easily be in
response to #192, which slipped in.
|
lk
|
|
response 197 of 293:
|
Dec 16 00:01 UTC 2003 |
(As I said in #165.)
Some homosexual couples reproduce/adopt even after coming out.
As for Jewish beliefs (in a nut-shell), there is no hell. There's not
much said even about an afterlife. When the Messiah comes, the dead
shall rise and we'll all figure it out. There is a concept called
Sheol, more akin to Hades, where all the dead go. But it's not very
well defined. Judaism is more concerned with this life.
Jews do not "recruit" (you know, unlike homosexuals (: ) but do
accept converts to the faith. (Moses himself married a non-Jew, as
did King David, Solomon and others). Converts are considered full Jews
in every sense. In fact, the line of David came from Ruth, a convert.
|
jp2
|
|
response 198 of 293:
|
Dec 16 00:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 199 of 293:
|
Dec 16 00:32 UTC 2003 |
I think whether or not they do is pretty irrelevent to the argument.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 200 of 293:
|
Dec 16 00:33 UTC 2003 |
well, look at it this way. If Jews, Moslems, adn Christians all worship
the same God, They all say they want peace, adn tehy all keep fighting
each other, SOMBODY has got it wrong!
Yeah -- ALL OF THEM. Why anyone wants to pattern their lives after a set
of religious tenets invented by people who can't even get along with each
other is beyond me. Looking at the Middle East, I'd think that sane
people would reject any way of life that came out of that snakepit on
general principles.
|
jep
|
|
response 201 of 293:
|
Dec 16 00:56 UTC 2003 |
Huh. I think Middle Eastern monotheism and the general Judao-Christian
moral principles which accompanied it, taken as a whole, surpass by far
any other contribution to civilization which came out of that region.
Or for that matter, any region. I think it's the basis for modern
nationalism instead of tribalism and industry replacing agriculture,
for starters among things that I value in life.
|
keesan
|
|
response 202 of 293:
|
Dec 16 01:29 UTC 2003 |
Industry has replaced agriculture? I still eat food.
|