|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
vidar
|
|
response 93 of 293:
| 
Dec 9 00:02 UTC 2003 |
What seems to be happening here is a case of "you have to do what I
believe is right, because if you believe differently than me you are
WRONG and will GO TO HELL." I got way too much of this attitude when I
went to school in Malaysia, and please excuse my language, but I showed
them that I wasn't swallowing any of the shit they tried to feed me.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 94 of 293:
|
Dec 9 01:25 UTC 2003 |
Bruce, there are a number of Christian denominations that would be happy to
marry gay couples if gay marriage were legal under the civil laws.
|
lk
|
|
response 95 of 293:
|
Dec 9 03:33 UTC 2003 |
In addition, Reform Judaism and some Conservative Rabbis will perform gay
marriage ceremonies. Again, due to the law, they can only issue religous,
but not legal, certificates.
I'm also not sure you understood my example regarding "infidel Muslim
marriage". If the term "marriage" can be applied to "infidels" without
weakening the institution, why would applying it to a loving Christian
couple (who happened to be gay) weaken it?
Furthermore, if either of these can be said to weaken the institution, then
it must be pretty weak on its own merits. I don't believe it is. Do you?
|
klg
|
|
response 96 of 293:
|
Dec 9 04:01 UTC 2003 |
re: "#92 (keesan): Just because there are three definitions in
Webster does not mean that you have to fit ALL of them..."
Certainly not. You just need to fit the RELEVANT ONES.
Mr. flem,
Anyone CAN get married. (Well, perhaps it may be limited to non-
institutionalized, competent humans of age who are not related by
blood or currently married.) Except, one cannot marry somebody of the
same sex.
|
twenex
|
|
response 97 of 293:
|
Dec 9 08:36 UTC 2003 |
#86 is a PERFECT example of why one should NEVER trust a conservative:
they expect you to do what they want, because if you don't, you're
gonna be subject to hellfire and damnation in their eyes, whether or
not this is actually going to happen when you die. But, of course, it
is ok for them to do whatever the hell they want, because the end
justifies the means.
Once again, conservatism shows it's Ultimate Power: The power to
disgust and horrify anyone with a brain.
|
slynne
|
|
response 98 of 293:
|
Dec 9 18:44 UTC 2003 |
If certain religions are willing to marry homosexuals, is a violation
of constitutional freedom of religion protection to deny those people
the usual legal rights associated with marriage? Or is religion not
really a part of the secular, civil definition of marriage? And if
religion is not part of the secular, civil definition of marriage, why
are we limiting it only one man and one woman?
|
twenex
|
|
response 99 of 293:
|
Dec 9 18:51 UTC 2003 |
Depends on your POV. In the uk, divorcees getting married in church is
not allowed. So civil marriage is the way to go; OTOH, many people
choose to marry in registry offices anyway.
|
flem
|
|
response 100 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:36 UTC 2003 |
re #96: Come on, klg. You used to be better at the straw man bit.
You've been slipping recently. Pull yourself together, man.
What I don't understand is that, even though you religious conservative
types know perfectly well that gay couples are going to burn in hell for
all eternity, you feel the need to persecute them further in this world.
Can't you leave the moral judgements to God? Don't you think he's up
to it?
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:46 UTC 2003 |
I think the idea is that if they make homosexuals' lives miserable
enough, they'll convert to heterosexuality, thus saving their souls.
|
flem
|
|
response 102 of 293:
|
Dec 9 19:53 UTC 2003 |
I think you're being a lot more generous to them than I would.
|
bru
|
|
response 103 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:03 UTC 2003 |
well, I suppose that is one way to look at it. The other way is that "IF"
it is a sin, it is the duty of the Christian "not" to accept them into society
without pointing it out to them.
|
vidar
|
|
response 104 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:21 UTC 2003 |
I tried Christianity in my childhood. While I came to disagree with
the teachings, I was never taught to hate by my Church.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 105 of 293:
|
Dec 9 20:45 UTC 2003 |
at least not *directly*.
|
keesan
|
|
response 106 of 293:
|
Dec 9 21:59 UTC 2003 |
In Ireland, you can be divorced from a non-Catholic and then marry a Catholic
in a Catholic church because the church thinks you were never married to the
non-Catholic in the first place. Never mind that you had a legal marriage
and a child during the first marriage. And they overlook the child with the
second spouse-to-be which preceeded that marriage.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 107 of 293:
|
Dec 9 23:52 UTC 2003 |
Sindi, I believe you are mixing up church and civil rules for divorce
in Ireland. The rules for divorce are certainly stricter but do not,
as far as I know, make any formal recognition or distinction of
the religion of the individuals divorcing. I'm not even certain they
could, legally, under EC regulation.
Here is a URL which may shed more light on the "in's and out's" of
this:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/relationships/separation_divorce/
|
keesan
|
|
response 108 of 293:
|
Dec 10 01:16 UTC 2003 |
I am referring to church rules. The civil divorce took part in the USA.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 109 of 293:
|
Dec 10 01:19 UTC 2003 |
Re #103: Feel free to point it out, but stop legislating against it.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 293:
|
Dec 10 03:23 UTC 2003 |
klg, in an earlier response, stated:
"We have
no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has
been effective and useful for thousands of years."
so are you saying that if something has been in place for thousands of
years, that you do not think it should be changed? That this is the
"definition" or a "definition" of conservatism. In other words, klg is
admitting that he would have been against women's liberation and the civil
rights movement, and every other time that we have attempted to have
social change for the better. klg thinks NO social change is for the
better then-- he'd rather blacks were still slaves, and women were still
property of men, and neither were allowed to vote or be educated. Because
it had "been in place"
klg is saying don't change society, don't try to make it better, stay in
the past. well I know of conservatives who would argue with klg's
definition of "conservatism" William Safire for one, whose column opened
this item. Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than
liberalism is about changing when its not necessary.
What you see happening is natural. We evolved as a species, so why
shouldn't our culture evolve as well. Why shouldn't our culture evolve
and change and grow and adapt when it seems right to do so? Just because
something has been in place for thousands of years DOESN'T mean it
shouldn't be changed if in fact it is RIGHT to change. If we don't have
the courage to change even our oldest institutions, then we lack the
courage of our convictions. The insitution of marriage can be better, it
can be stronger, it can be something more people what to be a part of.
But right now, the divorce rate is escalating and many younger people
don't even see the point in marrying. That tells you change is necessary.
That tells you that marriage, even if as an institution it has been in
place for thousands of years, is not indestructible.
If we do not legalize gay marriage, just as if we had not legalized inter
racial marriage (which used to be illegal in many states), marriage itself
as an instutution would be under attack. It would continue to lose
relevance to younger generations, and become outdated. If klg CARES about
the institution of marriage, he should want it to grow and adapt with the
times.
|
jep
|
|
response 111 of 293:
|
Dec 10 04:57 UTC 2003 |
Richard, because you are a liberal (the opposite of conservative),
doesn't it follow from your definition of conservative that you must
be in favor of *every* change, regardless of who it will benefit or
who it will harm, or in what way, or with what intentions?
Klg didn't say anything like what you said.
Your definition of "conservative" couldn't possibly be a real
philosophy of anyone's. Everyone wants change. Every single person.
Those various types of people whom you collectively and
indiscriminately define as "conservative" certainly want changes.
According to your definition, no one could possibly fail to
oppose "conservativism". It's a fantasy definition, only useful to a
very limited sort of person. Some real people are conservative, and
some of those are honest, passionate and thoughtful. Conservatives
don't fit your view in any way.
Do you really need your straw men to blow away so easily? I imagine
you to be over the age of 12. It might be time to inject a little
realism into your political views. Just a little.
|
other
|
|
response 112 of 293:
|
Dec 10 05:40 UTC 2003 |
Good luck.
|
lk
|
|
response 113 of 293:
|
Dec 10 06:58 UTC 2003 |
What slynne said in #98.
It's true, klg specifically restricted his argument to the "definition
for a social institution that has been effective and useful for thousands
of years".
But klg is still in error.
For starters, it was Rabbi Gershom who outlawed polygamy amongst Jews.
Only a mere thousand years ago (not thousands), indicating that this
institution can and has changed even in some of the most conservative
corners.
More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!!
Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
"effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
be so.
I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
offend your God and weaken the institution?
|
mary
|
|
response 114 of 293:
|
Dec 10 11:46 UTC 2003 |
What possible difference does a sex organ have on whether
a relationship is good, and loving, and committed? Lots
of heterosexual people don't want to create children but
they can marry. Lots of happily married people don't
have sex where tab A goes into slot B, yet we aren't telling
them they aren't really "married". Orifices don't define
a marriage. It's the relationship.
|
twenex
|
|
response 115 of 293:
|
Dec 10 15:02 UTC 2003 |
Re: #10: Yeah, I agree. I often hear conservatives who say "If it
asin't broke don't fix it," bellowed in opposition to everything from
gay marriage to legalization of homosexuality to membership of the EU.
What they don't seem to realize is, just because they don't think it's
broken doesn't mean liberals/socialists/libertarians/centrists do.
|
klg
|
|
response 116 of 293:
|
Dec 10 17:48 UTC 2003 |
re: ". . . #113 (lk): For starters, it was Rabbi Gershom who outlawed
polygamy amongst Jews. Only a mere thousand years ago (not
thousands), . . . ."
Well, you got me there - technically. But, you full well know that in
Judaism technical and practical often are at two ends of the spectrum.
(For example, what is a father, according to Torah, supposed to be able
to do to discipline a rebellious son?? Can you cite a single instance
in which that punishment has been carried out or allowec???) But,
specifically to the subject at hand:
"Polygamy was permitted in the Bible. However, already in Biblical
times, it was viewed with some suspicion and subjected to both ethical
and legal restrictions. In particular, the Torah stipulated (Exodus
21:10) that when a man took a second wife, he could not reduce the
first wife's rightful portion of food, clothing, or conjugal
relations. The early rabbinic period, also, treated polygamy as
allowed, but discouraged. I can't recall any Talmudic rabbi that had
more than one wife (at a time)."
http://www.kolel.org
So, as you well know, Jews have, in practical terms, been monogamists
for thousands of years.
Furthermore, you are well aware that we are not talking about
the "institution of marriage," but of the definition of marriage.
While the former may have changed, the vast majority of people are not
interested in changing the latter, i.e., one man and one woman.
re: "#114 (mary): What possible difference does a sex organ have on
whether a relationship is good, and loving, and committed? . . . ."
What possible difference does species make if the relationship is good,
loving and committed?
|
gull
|
|
response 117 of 293:
|
Dec 10 18:45 UTC 2003 |
Nice straw man, but so far I'm not aware of any species that can
intelligently commit to a relationship, other than human beings.
|