RE: Homosexual’s marriages…

RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen So, are we saying we need to choose between Christianity and rights for homosexuals? E No, not exactly. I am saying that if you want to declare yourself a Christian, you must conform to Christian standards. Do not expect Christianity to bend for you. It just is not going to happen. It is completely ignorant and pigheaded of someone to expect it to. Therein lies the real issue and the reason Christians everywhere are up in arms. They did it to themselves. They are their own worst enemy. There are all kinds of rights afforded to homosexuals, the same as any other member of society. They are just not happy with that... Give an inch, take a mile.

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:06:48 PM)
Actually Kennen you're incorrect the state of legal marriage conveys something like 1,000 rights that gay couples have to work out to get seperatly, where a married couple gets them automaticly as a part of marriage. Besides marriage is not solely a christian rite, there are marriage rites in every religion I can think of including hundreds of pagan marriages which have the same rights leaglly. But still gay couples don't get the rights conveyed though that simple fileing of papers with the state. Hospital visitation cannot be denied a spouse Inheritance rights are automatic being the first two I can bring to mind. And each of the 3 times homosexuality is supposedly addressed in the new testiment by Paul it is easily shown that the sin discribed is not in the homosexual act itself but in the expression of sexual lust beyond control and being sought after ahead of God. Both of which appl to heterosexuals equally.

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen So, are we saying we need to choose between Christianity and rights for homosexuals? E No, not exactly. I am saying that if you want to declare yourself a Christian, you must conform to Christian standards. Do not expect Christianity to bend for you. It just is not going to happen. It is completely ignorant and pigheaded of someone to expect it to. Therein lies the real issue and the reason Christians everywhere are up in arms. They did it to themselves. They are their own worst enemy. There are all kinds of rights afforded to homosexuals, the same as any other member of society. They are just not happy with that... Give an inch, take a mile. Hello A/all, I wonder if the logic here (Christians cannot be homosexual) is similar to the sheer oddity of the group (homosexual Republicans?) known as the Log Cabin Republicans. I know of any number of Christian groups (Unitarian Universalists, Religious Scientists, etc) who openly welcome homosexuals into their ranks. These are the groups that tend to be criticized by the hard-core fundamentalist groups because they see Christian writings and beliefs as possibly apocryphal stories, have inner meanings, and are examples of how to live one's life. As opposed to those who think that a book rewritten and translated by semi-literate monks for over a thousand years actually contains the actual Word Of God or whatever. This is just me and I could be wrong. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:15:27 PM)
Paul's view and understanding of homosexuality is nowhere near what we now it to be today. The homsexuals pauls knew who practiced openly enough to be seen were mostly temple prostitutes and those that frequented them, since that would mean two things exploiting children (the temple prostitutes were often young boys), and giving money to the support of a rival god, it would stand to reason that they would be excluded. How many committed monogomous homosexual couples do you think Paul ever met and knew they were gay?

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Actually Kennen you're incorrect the state of legal marriage conveys something like 1,000 rights that gay couples have to work out to get seperatly, where a married couple gets them automaticly as a part of marriage. Besides marriage is not solely a christian rite, there are marriage rites in every religion I can think of including hundreds of pagan marriages which have the same rights leaglly. But still gay couples don't get the rights conveyed though that simple fileing of papers with the state. Hospital visitation cannot be denied a spouse Inheritance rights are automatic being the first two I can bring to mind. And each of the 3 times homosexuality is supposedly addressed in the new testiment by Paul it is easily shown that the sin discribed is not in the homosexual act itself but in the expression of sexual lust beyond control and being sought after ahead of God. Both of which appl to heterosexuals equally. Legal marriage might confer certain rights, but homosexuals do not have the RIGHT to be married. This is a line of bullshit that they have been spewing for years, but nowhere in American documents is it stated that they have this right. As far as I am concerned, marriage is a privilege. One that I will take a pass on if I have the opportunity. Incidentally, a common-law couple in Canada has all the same rights as a married couple. I just love Canada. [8D] (Yes, I am bragging). I realize that all kinds of religions have marriage ceremonies. That is fine. It further backs up My point. If homosexuals do not like the way Christians do things (which really is tough shit, whether they like it or not), then they can go get married in some other religion. That IS their right. But see, they are not happy with that. They want to force their views and beliefs on others and as far as I am concerned anybody that takes up that position can go fuck themselves, and that is not limited to homosexuals either. Blunt? Perhaps. But that is life. By the way, it is not limited to sexual lust beyond control. If you want to get into a battle of the Greek, you picked the right guy. Not to mention I have a Greek friend on MSN that can back Me up. I keep him handy for just such an occasion. Lust is addressed elsewhere, and a different Greek word is used. It is kind of funny, actually. The Greeks have a word for everything. Far more precise than English.

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:36:14 PM)
Then lets boogie bad boy, LOL The word homosexual appears nowhere in the bible (prior to the 1946 Revised Standard edition) and I conject that the translatrion to homosexual from the greek to english is so out of sync with what we know as a homosexual today. STate your case that it is an accurate translation.

LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:40:21 PM)
(fast reply) Could someone tell me what rights that are in marriage are denied those in civil unions? If they are the same.. then would the "marriage" issue be taken up with whatever religion is fighting it? (this is not directed to Archer..I was just here at the last post at the time)

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:44:05 PM)
BTW the Right to marry someone of the opposite sexs dodge is just that a dodge. They seek the right to marry the peoson they love, and that is protected for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals. They are seeking equal protection under the law. It's not a US Constitutional right it is a state right since it is the state that issues marriage liscences not the Feds. The Federal issue comes into play with the idea of recognition of marriages from another state.

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:47:03 PM)
The fact is that the US government will not recognize for any purpose any states civil union between two members of the same gender for any US government purpose including taxation. Nor would they recognize either parties rights should a court case reach the US ourts level.

LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:50:03 PM)
So civil unions have no rights at all then?

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:53:02 PM)
only within the state they were issued.

raiken -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:56:05 PM)
As an aside, i believe that fear is one of the prime motivators in this. Many folks misunderstand the nature of homosexuality as being one of abnormalacy, evil origins, demonic possession in some extreme pov's, and they believe that by allowing them the same rights as other heteros, that they will be in acceptance of such things. Denying them marraige may also be born from such fearful reasoning. Folks tend to hate and seek to destroy what they do not understand. Some fundamental teachings seem to abhor just about everything that is outside the bible belt standard. Just an observation, nothing personal against christians, been there done that many moons ago.

LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 12:59:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer only within the state they were issued. Bear with me one more time Archer :) .. and what are those rights that are given in the state where the Civil Union was issued in comparison to marriage? Oh.. and to the general board.. I've thought of the most lovely alternative to the word marriage.. how about "Heart-fasting"?

Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 1:02:46 PM)
In the very few states that have civil union laws they tend to convey all the civil rights that any couple that is married gets. The argument that many gay couples use is that it is tantamount to Seperate but Equal, argueing that point at this time to me seems counter productive. But I see the reasoning behind it. As I said before I would prefer that the states issue nothing but civil union licenses and leave the term marriage to the churches to do with as they wish.

darkinshadows -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 1:30:56 PM)
So, if a couple are married/union in a state that allows gay marriage and moves state - even to a state that recognises gay unions... the rights they have vary? Or am I reading that wrong? Peace and Rapture from a very confused UKer...

juliaoceania -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 1:31:04 PM)
Marriage is not a Christian institution... so that whole entire argument is moot... seriously

Bearlee -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 1:40:48 PM)
I agree with julia...marriage is not a Christian institution and those who argue that point need to do more research. And...religions have been growing and changing (and shrinking) and breaking off bits and growing other bits for centuries and centuries. One cannot say, blanketly, that homosexuals are not tollerated by Christians. What bunk! ...and shallow, narrowminded thinking, to boot!!! It never ceases to amaze me how sad some who call themselves Christians are. Isn't Christianity the teaching/following of Christ? Seems to me he was no bigot at all and loved all people.........and lived by EXAMPLE, not condemnation. bear

Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 1:41:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Marriage is not a Christian institution... so that whole entire argument is moot... seriously To take this one step further, I would want to point out that monogamy is not really a human institution. There was an interesting article in Psychology Today a few months ago about satisfaction within a long term relationship. Apparently, people's satisfaction with their partner (life) went down over time the longer they were with each other. It was kind of interesting to read. 60 years ago a woman whose marraige ended found herself ostracized by the society she lived in. What this means to me is that long term marraiges were normative in society because one half of the relationship had no alternative. Then second wave Feminism came around in the 1960s, followed by the growth of "Its all about me" psychology, and relationships started ending in droves. I believe the divorce rate is now approaching 100% for marraiges. I really do not care who wants to get married. I object to the rules being weighted against two people who love each other being determined by their naughty bits. But that is just me and I could be wrong. Sinergy

Kirei -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 2:04:41 PM)
Lets look at marriage as the churches define it. Marriage is a vow to do 3 actions or commands by each person. The first which both have is love. Love is not an emotion it is an action. God sayes to love your neighbor, love him, etc. This implies an action of some sort being taken...not a feeling or emotion toward something. When the action is done a feeling or emotion can sometimes happen. That good feeling you have for helping out your nieghbor for example. The second which both have is honor. Honor begins with praise, thats why if you honor God you praise his name. You don't see people going to church and saying, "You know if God was really watching out for me that car would not have hit me last week", etc. That is not showing praise nor respect...so it is not showing honor. So how many people today that get married honor their spouse. When I see couples today they are always arguing, and blaming each for this or that. Not much honor being given to either by my book. The third thing which is different is obey for women, and cherish for men. Cherish implies the action of holding something above all else. Yet how many men would rather watch a ball game, or do yard work, etc. then doing something with their wife. In biblical times the ratio was the man was the head, the man went to church and then told what he heard, and taught the wife, and she passed it on to the children. If we bring this up to modern times then the ratio is 51%(men)/49%(wife), with the husband getting the final word on all things. Yet this only happens if the other 2 promises are being maintained. Remember its the third promise on top of the others. Now if you look closely at these promises...you can see that if one does not do one the other doesn't. It really can be easily seen today. This is the institute of marriage that the church is trying to set. The problem is they are not even following their own rules that were laid out for them to do as well. So how can you say that these promises only apply to a just a man and woman. They sound more like a lifestyle promise to me from a collaring. Just insert master/mistress for man and slave/sub for woman. Koneko

darkinshadows -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 2:56:07 PM)
The meaning of 'cherish' in marriage is not about holding something above something else - its meaning was to protect. One can honour without praise they are not one in the same and although they link, they do exist seperately. You honour decisions, you honour ideas, but you do not have to praise them. And love is both an action and sensation. That good feeling you get for helping out a neighbour is pride (which is a sin[;)])... when looking into the eyes of one you want to spend the rest of your life with - that is love. Peace and Rapture

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02