RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG

RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 7:55:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I believe Mockery is taken too:) That`s a good one tho....never heard it before. Glib,arrogant,mean and foolish all at the same time....[:D]

kdsub -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 7:56:36 PM)
quote: dumb old mother fuckers die. Hmmm.. Dumb...I guess I am to open my mouth on this subject Old...damn my back is hurting just setting here Mother fucker...will I do have kids...and they even look like me anyway...poor things. So I guess I have to be one of those... but... I have taught my kids right...they are not bigots... believe in gay marriage...and ...they are religious. Butch

dcnovice -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 7:58:07 PM)
quote: What I don't get, is gay couples who want to be married under the rules of a religion that is hostile towards homosexuality. It's their choice, of course, but it does seem contradictory. Fair point. It's one of the reasons I gave up going to Dignity (the gay Catholic group). I didn't understand why folks clung to a denomination that so manifestly didn't want them. Happily, not all denominations are hostile to homosexuality these days. Unitarians and my beloved Episcopalians come to mind. quote: Then again, I admit to having an early rooted bias; I grew up in a house with a minister for a father, and "interpretive Christianity" feels less true to the precepts laid out - whether they are right or wrong, they are what they are. Isn't "interpretive Christianity" as old as the religion itself? Peter and Paul argued over whether gentiles could be Christians, and each gospel limns Jesus and his ministry slightly differently. Then there are all the scriptures that didn't make into the canon. Meantime, Arians and Trinitarians argued for three centuries before the Council of Nicaea decided that, yes, Jesus was divine and set forth the creed. Even the creed's not final, though, since the Western and Eastern churches clashed bitterly over the filioque. Not to mention the Reformation, which splintered Christendom into God knows how many sects. All this to say there's never been a single set of "precepts laid out."

kdsub -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:01:58 PM)
quote: precepts laid out But speaking of Catholics...I don't believe they are as closed minded about gays and marriage as the clergy would have us believe. At least that is my experience...but each to their own I guess. Butch

TheHeretic -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice So what's their non-homophobic basis for denying gays and lesbians the use of the word "marriage"? First, DC, I think you know where I am on this issue, and it was you that raised a couple points that aided me in getting here. If I knew a kid heading out into the world from law school, I'd tell him to specialize in gay divorce. I've weighed it out, and for me, individual liberty has to trump. The easy compromise between two values couldn't work. That said, let me try to answer your question; Preservation of the traditional culture. The institution of marriage has taken a hell of a beating over the last fifty years or so, and society is worse off for it. Fatherless children have turned the inner cities into war zones. The two best ways to live in poverty in the US, are to be a single mother, or be born to one. Now we are going to redefine marriage, on top of that?

RemoteUser -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:10:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Then again, I admit to having an early rooted bias; I grew up in a house with a minister for a father, and "interpretive Christianity" feels less true to the precepts laid out - whether they are right or wrong, they are what they are. Isn't "interpretive Christianity" as old as the religion itself? Peter and Paul argued over whether gentiles could be Christians, and each gospel limns Jesus and his ministry slightly differently. Then there are all the scriptures that didn't make into the canon. Meantime, Arians and Trinitarians argued for three centuries before the Council of Nicaea decided that, yes, Jesus was divine and set forth the creed. Even the creed's not final, though, since the Western and Eastern churches clashed bitterly over the filioque. Not to mention the Reformation, which splintered Christendom into God knows how many sects. All this to say there's never been a single set of "precepts laid out." Interpretive versus literal translation. [;)] The precepts in general do get translated in a number of ways. Maybe better to put it in old school terms: no one questions the meanings of the commandments, they're pretty straightforward. Likewise, the Bible isn't shy about saying exactly how homosexuality is viewed. I'm not saying the clear bias is right, only that it's there; hard to misinterpret; and yet people do tilt the meaning. My personal favourite example is when a lesbian says that God doesn't mind lesbians because only men who lay with each other should be stoned to death...

LafayetteLady -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:19:51 PM)
~Fast Reply~ First, while I do understand everyone's point about the Senator, the fact is that many people don't really understand something until it is part of their lives. He didn't understand until his son told him he was gay. Is it hard to understand the desire for equal rights really? Of course not. But what matters here, is that he has learned the error of his ways, was big enough to speak out about his changed perspective and is now hoping to help make things right. Here is the thing about religion and "marriage." Originally, the word "marriage" was not used in the bible. That word has been put into modern versions to make it more understandable to people. Originally, the term they could most closely translate from the original was "companion." It was understood to mean "marriage" in modern terms. So basically, everyone has "companions" that we call in modern terms "marriage." The problem Butch, since you seem not to understand, is that Civil Unions DO NOT offer all the same rights and privileges of marriage. They receive no tax benefits, no Social Security benefits, and are not guaranteed "next of kin" benefits by any hospital or facility that would require "next of kin" type of things. Those are just a select few of the benefits NOT offered by Civil Unions, yet are offered by marriage. Sometimes I think the best solution might be to refer to all couples committed "legally" to each other to be called civil unions. I also think that if those who keep saying it is the same thing were told that they now had only the rights afforded to Civil Unions, they might finally understand that it isn't the same as marriage, just with a different word.

dcnovice -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:24:35 PM)
quote: The institution of marriage has taken a hell of a beating over the last fifty years or so, and society is worse off for it. Fatherless children have turned the inner cities into war zones. The two best ways to live in poverty in the US, are to be a single mother, or be born to one. Good points, Rich. But they raise two questions: (a) If the real societal concern is the health of marriage, why focus on same-sex marriage instead of on the actual social ills--which long predate gay marriage--that have battered this important institution? (b) If, as you and I agree, marriage is an important path toward prosperity and productivity, why would we bar gay and lesbian folks who are essentially volunteering to strengthen society, as well as their own families, by living faithful and committed lives? quote: Now we are going to redefine marriage, on top of that? Marriage has never had a single definition that fits all time and places. Solomon had, if memory serves, a hundred wives, and there are places today where a man can have multiple female spouses. Even one-man-one-woman marriage has evolved, being (among other things) an arrangement made by parents for dynastic or economic reasons, a situation in which the woman was essentially the man's property, matches in which the woman was more than chattel but nowhere near an equal partner, and love matches between peers. Like just about any word in the dictionary, marriage has evolved--and, I suspect, always will.

dcnovice -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:34:14 PM)
FR Folks on this rather earnest thread might appreciate a bit of comic relief: Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage [:)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:34:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think if tazzy were here there would be polls galore... According to the findings, 64 percent of American adults believe same-sex marriage will become legal, whether or not they believe in it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/gay-marriage-inevitable-americans_n_2876601.html CBS News Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2013. N=1,148 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. . "Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?" . 2/6-10/13 54 (legal) 39 (not legal) 8 (unsure) Fox News "Do you favor or oppose legalizing same-sex marriage?" 2/25-27/13 46 (favor) 46 (Oppose) 8 (unsure) Quinnipiac University Poll "In general, do you support or oppose same-sex marriage?" 47 (support) 43(oppose) 10 (unsure) http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm [image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/03/GayMarriage1.jpg[/image] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/15/rob-portman-and-the-end-of-the-gay-marriage-debate/ [image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/03/GayMarriage2.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/03/2013-03-15-GaymarAGEchart.jpeg[/image] [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice So what's their non-homophobic basis for denying gays and lesbians the use of the word "marriage"? First, DC, I think you know where I am on this issue, and it was you that raised a couple points that aided me in getting here. If I knew a kid heading out into the world from law school, I'd tell him to specialize in gay divorce. I've weighed it out, and for me, individual liberty has to trump. The easy compromise between two values couldn't work. That said, let me try to answer your question; Preservation of the traditional culture. The institution of marriage has taken a hell of a beating over the last fifty years or so, and society is worse off for it. Fatherless children have turned the inner cities into war zones. The two best ways to live in poverty in the US, are to be a single mother, or be born to one. Now we are going to redefine marriage, on top of that? "Fatherless children have turned the inner cities into war zones" Ummm...gays have nothing to do with this.....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING..... Could we have a better reason for singling out gays for discriminating....I don`t know...something say..... that has anything to do with gay folks.....or connected with reality? Looks like it`s purposeful ,degrading insults, trying to be disguised as heart felt feelings....... But isn`t that how prejudiced code phrases work?

kdsub -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:42:51 PM)
quote: The problem Butch, since you seem not to understand, is that Civil Unions DO NOT offer all the same rights and privileges of marriage. They receive no tax benefits, no Social Security benefits, and are not guaranteed "next of kin" benefits by any hospital or facility that would require "next of kin" type of things. Those are just a select few of the benefits NOT offered by Civil Unions, yet are offered by marriage. Yes I agree and do understand... there are states who give exactly the same rights but federal law does not. But keep in mind this is the same for states that allow same sex marriage to be called marriages... They also are not the same in federal law. This is not what we are talking about… different issue. There is much progress that needs to be made on the Federal and state level. I am not disputing this…I am only talking about the battle of the minds over the naming of gay marriage and the reasons for the dispute…not the right or wrong of the reasons. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:44:25 PM)
Thank you so much tazzy. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 8:50:30 PM)
Check THIS out... It may change your views on Catholics and gay marriage. Butch

DomMeinCT -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 9:04:10 PM)
QR - Great short opinion piece on Slate: Rob Portman and the Politics of Narcissism

dcnovice -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 9:05:32 PM)
quote: Interpretive versus literal translation. Fortunately, I've never been part of a "literal" denomination, which has spared me all sorts of mental tortures. Both the Catholics of my childhood and the Episcopalians of my adult life have recognized the need to view the Bible within its cultural context and discern the difference between the words and the Word (to borrow from Bishop Spong). One of the things that drew me to Episcopalianism was the image of faith as a stool resting on three legs: scripture, tradition, and reason. quote: Maybe better to put it in old school terms: no one questions the meanings of the commandments, they're pretty straightforward. Let's take one of the simplest and starkest commandments: "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex 20:13 KJV). Do those four clear words forbid warfare or killing in self-defense? How about capital punishment? Do they apply only to killing people or to animals as well? quote: Likewise, the Bible isn't shy about saying exactly how homosexuality is viewed. I'm not saying the clear bias is right, only that it's there; hard to misinterpret; and yet people do tilt the meaning. My personal favourite example is when a lesbian says that God doesn't mind lesbians because only men who lay with each other should be stoned to death... Your use of the passive "is viewed" is interesting. Is viewed by whom? The patriarchal tribe that wrote the OT? Modern Christians (who do not embrace many other parts of the Hebrew holiness codes)? God? Then there's the question of whether the Levitical writer understood "homosexuality" as we do--a loving, consensual act between two people of the same sex--or as an act undertaken by a straight man either to defy God or humiliate/dominate another man. (The notorious Sodom story, for instance, is about gang rape not same-sex love.) The understanding of a same-sex orientation that is an immutable part of oneself is a relatively recent development. And if lesbians find a loophole in the patriarchal language of the Bible, more power to them! [:)]

JeffBC -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 9:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RemoteUser My personal favourite example is when a lesbian says that God doesn't mind lesbians because only men who lay with each other should be stoned to death... Really? Because honestly there's so much gender bias in the bible that I'd need to be a historian of the relative culture in order to figure out what they may or may not have thought about lesbians. I sure wouldn't make the natural inference that it was the same rules as guys. Nothing else was. I'm not really arguing anything it's just an observation. That all being said, I just want to toss in that one of the coolest parts of our new country for Carol and I is that not only do they allow gay marriage here but it was won as a human rights issue. While the supreme court here isn't perfect and neither is the govt., I groove on the fact that "human rights" matters and I love the fact that the Canadian SC finds the Canadian constitution still relevant. It's kind of weird to live in a town that is staid enough to have an area called "the tweed curtain" and yet still has an open and accepted gay community. I'm not even sure it's right to call it a "gay community" because the gays and lesbians and whatnot are just sort of mixed in with everyone else. Nobody cares enough to think of them as some sort of community (at least, that's what the article I was reading said). Yay Canada

Winterapple -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 10:40:04 PM)
Lesbians have historically been able to fly beneath the radar easier than gay men. In the nineteenth century, Queen Victoria refused to believe lesbians existed and as a result only male homosexual laws were signed. My own grandmother told me she was in her thirties, married with a child before she learned of the existence of lesbians. Gay men she knew about but she had never imagined there were women who were into women. A great deal of Biblical condemnation of male homosexuality had to do with patriarchy. The man who received the other man so to speak was seen as lowering himself to the level of a woman. And this was in their eyes a very bad thing as women were less than men. To behave like a woman was the sin. The top as it were wasn't seen as doing anything that bad. He was just doing the male inclination to stick his member somewhere pleasurable.

dcnovice -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/15/2013 11:54:45 PM)
quote: A great deal of Biblical condemnation of male homosexuality had to do with patriarchy. The man who received the other man so to speak was seen as lowering himself to the level of a woman. And this was in their eyes a very bad thing as women were less than men. To behave like a woman was the sin. The top as it were wasn't seen as doing anything that bad. He was just doing the male inclination to stick his member somewhere pleasurable. It's amazing, and saddening, how pervasive this mindset remains even today. I know gay guys who boast of being tops, as if that somehow makes them less queer than the rest of us. And when I landed on Planet Cancer, I was stunned, after three decades of thinking I was out and proud, by how almost shameful it felt to ask the oncologist about how radiating and removing the rectal mass would affect my experience as a bottom in anal sex.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gay Marriage is WRONG (3/16/2013 3:39:19 AM)
quote: In the nineteenth century, Queen Victoria refused to believe lesbians existed and as a result only male homosexual laws were signed. It seems that's an urban myth. The truth, though, hints that lesbianism was even deeper below the radar during Victorian times than people have realised: 'Don't mention lesbianism because it might give women ideas!' See e.g. http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/mythbusters/353/victoria_and_the_lesbians.html

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875