11 States ban gay marriage

[Guest SP-1]

No one's telling you to marry a man, SP.

 

Just because something's sinful doesn't mean it's against the law, or should be against the law.

 

No one's forcing YOU to sin.

 

So what do you care what two gay people do?

 

Gay sex isn't even one of the ten commandments.  If you want to make things illegal, go with the big ones first.

 

You already have some of them, stealing, murder.

 

Why not make it illegal to worship anyone besides the Christian god.

Yet not protesting these things in the legal channels boils down to passively supporting them. Which I cannot do.

I must ask -- would you join me in supporting a Constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal? I'm asking that in all seriousness. If that issue was actually on the ballot, how would you vote on it?

No, because there are some instances where divorce is biblically sound and justified. Adultery, for instance. There are no such instances for homosexuality. It's not the same thing.

 

Jobber: It isn't pretentious of me at all. God is either God and His definitions are final, or He isn't and it doesn't matter. If God has said that this is wrong in blanket terms with no loopholes to justify it, then that fact extends to everything I support or do not support. You live in a country where a percentage of the population which is greater than the percentage you agree with oppposses your issue. Welcome to America. It was voted against soundly, whether by Christians, pseudo-Christians, pagans, atheists or what have you. A majority spoke clearly. You just have to deal with that and try to make the system swing to your favor when you get the chance. But calling people names isn't going to win your side any votes.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm catching so much hell from teenage liberals for arguing that marriage is between a man and a woman, it's not even funny. I said domestic partnerships or civil unions were fine, but not good enough unless you make every church and sovereign state recognize man-on-man marriage.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok here is a question. Once civil unions become legal nationally, then wouldn't be up to a priest/preacher/rabbi/minister etc......to individually decide if he wants to marry someone, since marriage is just like the religious stamp of approval on a civil union.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I suppose. Then we'll find out who stands up for what they believe in and who's willing to whore out their place of worship for a few bucks.

[Special K 0]

SP-1

 

Some questions of legality can not be based on the bible. If we based our economy on the bible, we'd be completely socialist. And we all know how well that always works.

Again, there is no mention of homosexuality by the four apostolic writers in the Bible. It's all in the old testament and, I believe, in some of Paul's letters.

There are laws in the old testament that are frankly abhorrent, cruel and despicable. If anyone practiced those laws in this country, they would be in jail. That is a fact. You say it's "God is either God and His definitions are final, or He isn't and it doesn't matter." Well, how can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible should be made law in a civilized society, that espouses freedom -within the bounds of not harming others- as its very core?

So if the only objection to homosexual marriage is religion, I really don't see it, unless you espouse murdering women who aren't virgins on their wedding day.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I just don't understand how modern Christians can look at the 180 between the Old and New Testament and not concede that the Bible was written by man, and we don't know everything that God intends for us.

[NoCalMike 0]

I suppose. Then we'll find out who stands up for what they believe in and who's willing to whore out their place of worship for a few bucks.

well then the debate over gay "marriage" is a waste of time. Also, anyone can be ordained a minister of their own made up religion for a small fee in city hall. So virtually anyone could marry a gay couple as long as the civil union was recognized by the government.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm catching so much hell from teenage liberals for arguing that marriage is between a man and a woman, it's not even funny. I said domestic partnerships or civil unions were fine, but not good enough unless you make every church and sovereign state recognize man-on-man marriage.

Do civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marriage, Loss?

 

If not, then I would strongly support gay marriage.

 

If so, then I wouldn't really care either way.

[Special K 0]

I do hate that states sort of snuck in the banning of civil unions. The gay marriage issue is such a wedge issue, conservatives recognized it and used it for great political gain. People warned against it. I remember someone on the board (rant?) mentioned there was going to be a backlash, and someone else just ripped into them, basically saying 'how can you decide what we fight for.' That's denying common sense. The gay community, and those that support them now will have to persuade people, which will eventually happen in our lifetime, IMO.

[Guest MikeSC]

I do hate that states sort of snuck in the banning of civil unions. The gay marriage issue is such a wedge issue, conservatives recognized it and used it for great political gain. People warned against it. I remember someone on the board (rant?) mentioned there was going to be a backlash, and someone else just ripped into them, basically saying 'how can you decide what we fight for.' That's denying common sense. The gay community, and those that support them now will have to persuade people, which will eventually happen in our lifetime, IMO.

I know I was warning about it. Going to the courts to make law --- rather than attempting to argue the case to the people --- will turn the people against you in a major way.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

I'm still waiting for ONE reason, people.

 

One.

 

Anyone who is against gay marriage...

 

...NOT the whole "courts forcing their decisions on people...

 

...but G-A-Y M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E...

 

...please tell me a reason why it's no good.

 

This is not directed at SP because he's a misguided Christian who wouldn't know what "Open and Affirming" meant if it fucked him up the ass...

 

(to stay on topic )

[Guest SP-1]

SP-1

 

Some questions of legality can not be based on the bible. If we based our economy on the bible, we'd be completely socialist. And we all know how well that always works.

 

False. Passages on possessions being sold and so forth do not apply to the governmental domain of money. A distinction is made. Owning land, having more money than someone else, etc. are not condemned in the Bible. But those who DO have wealth are instructed to use it responsibly and to be generous with those who don't.

 

Again, there is no mention of homosexuality by the four apostolic writers in the Bible. It's all in the old testament and, I believe, in some of Paul's letters.

 

The four apostilic writers, eh? Are you referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because only Matthew and John were actually disciples. Luke came in later and thoroughly researched his Gospel account and Mark was likely a protege of Peter. Paul was also an apostle, considered as such by the Twelve and operating within that authority. Paul encountered the risen Christ himself and sought counsel from the others. Paul's authority is just as important and worthy as the other Apostles.

 

Paul was also fairly high up in the Jewish religious food chain. He was one of the most well versed men alive in the Old Testament at the time and he knew his stuff inside and out. He was right to instruct against homosexuality based on his knowledge of the scriptures that came before.

 

There are laws in the old testament that are frankly abhorrent, cruel and despicable. If anyone practiced those laws in this country, they would be in jail. That is a fact. You say it's "God is either God and His definitions are final, or He isn't and it doesn't matter." Well, how can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible should be made law in a civilized society, that espouses freedom -within the bounds of not harming others- as its very core?

 

Because Jesus and the New Testament writers laid out what transferred over from the Mosaic Law and what was rendered moot under the new Covenent of Grace. The punishments for sin in the Law were right, but their purpose was to showcase the absolute severity of sin so that people would not fall into it. Those punishments are now inapplicable because Christ took the full force of God's wrath towards sin on Himself when He was crucified. Jesus took the punishment. And the opportunity to let His act pardon us is the Gospel.

 

However, the New Testament writers still looked back to the behavioral guidelines because those are still viable to the Christian community. Simply because we are pardoned does not mean we have license to live a life of sin. And indeed if one willingly returns to that lifestyle of sin then they weren't actually saved in the first place. We are still called to repent and turn away from the things against those behavioral guidelines.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I just don't understand how modern Christians can look at the 180 between the Old and New Testament and not concede that the Bible was written by man, and we don't know everything that God intends for us.

 

There is no 180. There's a fulfillment of God's wrath in Christ, opening up the door to the age of visible forgiveness and change.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You are trying to extend your beliefs onto SP. He doesn't accept them like you don't accept his.

 

Don't be a hypocrite.

I don't have any "beliefs" of that sort and I'm not trying to cast them onto anyone.

 

In fact, I am trying to keep government free of influence via beliefs, whether they be my own or anyone else's.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber: It isn't pretentious of me at all.

Yes it is. You are policing the lives of other people based on Bible scripture and what God wants, with no respect whatsoever that the people whose lives being impacted might not have interest in your God and how he wants people to live.

 

That's pretentious to a tee.

 

You live in a country where a percentage of the population which is greater than the percentage you agree with oppposses your issue.  Welcome to America.

 

I don't mind that. I think we won't get anywhere without compromises which is why I support the solution that I mentioned in my last post towards you. The problem is that any compromise is impossible with people who are operating on your level.

[Guest SP-1]

You ignore the rest of my response to the notion of being pretentious. I'm not going to play around with you here Jobber. Either concretely refute my defense or don't come back to it at all.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You said that a bunch of states voted against gay marriage. I agree, and said that I don't support gay marriage even though I support the goal of the government granting equal rights to both sides.

 

You ignored my point that people like you who see this as a matter of God will never compromise, because you see these people as sinners and their lives must be made difficult as possible, so as not to encourage sin.

[MrRant 0]

But most Christians have nothing against civil unions.

 

Take what you can get you greedy bastards. It's just a fucking word. Let them have it and laugh at them when you have you benefits.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I.... I think that I agree with you, I'm not sure.

 

Thing is, I have to call bullshit on your "let them have their reasons for bringing religion into government" stuff because it'll come back and bite ya if a large Muslim movement organizes and express a wish to implement Islamic law in the government.

[MrRant 0]

I'm not saying let them put in the 10 Commandments but if you could promote civil unions with the same benefits and steer away from calling it "gay marriage" you will get a lot better footing.

 

I don't give a fuck either way.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You ignore the rest of my response to the notion of being pretentious. I'm not going to play around with you here Jobber. Either concretely refute my defense or don't come back to it at all.

The rest of your response was pretentious. Not to mention arbitrary, and you still haven't defended against his original point that you want to legislate your beliefs on others, flat out.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I just don't understand how modern Christians can look at the 180 between the Old and New Testament and not concede that the Bible was written by man, and we don't know everything that God intends for us.

Actually, most Christians will admit that we don't know all that God intends for us, and accept that the Bible was written by man. The idea is that the writers were INSPIRED by God to write what they did.

 

And so you know, I'm against gay marriage, but for Civil Unions. I have moral issues with homosexuality, but I don't think legislating is the way to deal with that.

[Guest Loss]

No, because there are some instances where divorce is biblically sound and justified. Adultery, for instance. There are no such instances for homosexuality. It's not the same thing.

 

Okay, would you support an amendment to ban divorce in all cases except for adultery? I should also mention that the Catholic church condones divorce under absolutely no circumstances.

[Guest Loss]

Do civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marriage, Loss?

Legally? Yes. Putting a different name on it, though, is no different than school segregation. Separate can't be equal. History has proven that.

 

I would be happy with civil unions, as marriage is a religious institution. I do think, however, that in that case, the government should not recognize any marriages, and instead call them ALL civil unions.

[Guest Loss]

The reason it is so hard for me, by the way, to not jump down the throats of those who don't think homosexuality is right, is because they don't obviously understand what homosexuality is. It's not a choice. WHY would anyone EVER put themselves through the trials and tribulations of being gay if they could simply choose not to do so?

 

Hell, if I could choose to be straight tomorrow, I would. My life would be much easier for it, and I'd be much happier. But when it's called a "preference" or a "choice", it makes me furious because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is absolutely not.

[Guest MikeSC]

The reason it is so hard for me, by the way, to not jump down the throats of those who don't think homosexuality is right, is because they don't obviously understand what homosexuality is. It's not a choice. WHY would anyone EVER put themselves through the trials and tribulations of being gay if they could simply choose not to do so?

 

Hell, if I could choose to be straight tomorrow, I would. My life would be much easier for it, and I'd be much happier. But when it's called a "preference" or a "choice", it makes me furious because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is absolutely not.

That is a VERY poor explanation of how being gay must be genetic.

 

Using your logic, being a criminal is genetic, because nobody would CHOOSE that lifestyle, what with all of the problems it causes.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

That is a VERY poor explanation of how being gay must be genetic.

 

Using your logic, being a criminal is genetic, because nobody would CHOOSE that lifestyle, what with all of the problems it causes.

-=Mike

I actually tend to think it's a combination of nature and nurture. Even if it's 100% nurture, that doesn't mean it's a choice.

 

The criminal life is often glamourized and made out to be very appealing. Homosexuality is definitely not.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Paul was also fairly high up in the Jewish religious food chain. He was one of the most well versed men alive in the Old Testament at the time and he knew his stuff inside and out. He was right to instruct against homosexuality based on his knowledge of the scriptures that came before.

If this implies Sodom & Gomorrah, that happened because the town were such shitty hosts, plus they couldn't find a scant few people in town who loved God.

 

I'm pretty sure you knew that, but in the unlikely event that you didn't.

[Guest CronoT]

The reason it is so hard for me, by the way, to not jump down the throats of those who don't think homosexuality is right, is because they don't obviously understand what homosexuality is. It's not a choice. WHY would anyone EVER put themselves through the trials and tribulations of being gay if they could simply choose not to do so?

 

Hell, if I could choose to be straight tomorrow, I would. My life would be much easier for it, and I'd be much happier. But when it's called a "preference" or a "choice", it makes me furious because I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is absolutely not.

That is a VERY poor explanation of how being gay must be genetic.

 

Using your logic, being a criminal is genetic, because nobody would CHOOSE that lifestyle, what with all of the problems it causes.

-=Mike

...and your counter-arguement, Mike, is VERY PISS poor, because medical science has proved that some criminal tendencies, such as being psychopathic, sociopathic, extreme violent rage, and schizophrenia ARE caused by genetics.

 

psychopathic

 

adj : suffering from an undiagnosed mental disorder [syn: psychopathologic, psychopathological]

 

so·ci·o·path

n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

 

schiz·o·phre·ni·a

n.

Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

 

So, what are you going to claim isn't what you know it is, next?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, still buying psychology as a legitimate science? How quaint.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Oh, so you were lying when you told us you had bipolar disorder?

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, so you were lying when you told us you had bipolar disorder?

No, I do. And I'm also in FULL control of what I do. I know right from wrong and if I ever stated that it "made" me do anything, I'd hope somebody would walk by and slit my throat. Psychology has a nasty habit of declaring EVERYTHING a disease or disorder.

-=Mike