News & Politics - Same Sex Marriage Continued - Page 8

the laziest little sidekick · 04-22-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Soon the world will come to an end, because of Outragous sin. Homosexuality is one thing that god goes agaist, but hey remember who am i to say right..... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Where was the end of the world during the Holocaust? If outrageous sin is what will bring about the end of the world, and events like the Holocaust couldn't do it, somehow I doubt allowing two men or two women to get married is going to.

Quote:

We don't have to leave it out of our argument. Freedom of Religion only protects you against being forced under a religious institution and doesn't guarantee you protection against hearing about it or people basing their value systems on it. Freedom of Speech? It still exists, you know.

The way I see it, the point isn't that people don't think they should have to hear your religious views. The problem is that many opponents of gay marriage don't have anything to base their arguments on other than a book that was written thousands of years ago. There doesn't seem to be a universally applicable argument against gay marriage, and that's why people are asking for reasons outside of religion. The argument in favor of gay marriage does have a solid foundation that is not based in a belief system held by a fraction of the population, while the argument against it does not.

pinx · 04-22-2004, 08:21 PM

One problem I have with people using the Bible to say that 'homosexuality is wrong' and 'God is against homosexual marriages' is that the Bible is so contradicting and hypocritical that anyone could find anything in there and use it to defend their cause.

Why is it so against our nature to live and let live? Haven't we been proven before that just because the masses deem one thing acceptable, that it might not necessarily be so. To reinforce what some said earlier, I'm sure in the times of slavery people used the Bible to justify their actions and behaviors and feelings, because it was 'God's will' or in 'God's plan'. It's easy to look back now and say that they were wrong, but during that time it probably was accepted by the majority.

What makes you all so certain that God wasn't misinterpreted and he really believes that everyone should be able to love and be joined with whomever they want?

*Lauren · 04-22-2004, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Arguments against gay marriage are going to be based on God or Religious beliefs. There is no getting pass that.

We all agree on that. The question is WHY then should it affect others that AREN'T part of that religion?

Quote:

You don't have to be religious to be against homosexuality. You may just believe in God and the laws of the bible but have no religion that you are affiliated with.

However, if you believe in the Bible, you are affiliating yourself with the Christian faith. That is a religion. You don't have to be affiliated with a certain church to be relious.

You're defining Church FAR too narrowly.

Quote:

that deems it immoral and unbeneficial to society.

Fourty years ago people believed it immoral and unbeneficial to society to give black people their civil rights. Is that OK?

Quote:

I don't believe Marriage is a right.

Why not? If I walked up to BDM and asked for a marriage certificate, they would have to give me one. Because its an inaliable right. You can't forbid a man and a woman to marry each other. (unless they're related)

Quote:

The bible makes reference to that. God destroyed the earth with floods to wash away all the sin in the story of Noah's Ark.

But as you said again, God regretted that, and that's why we have the rainbow. Besides, Jesus makes all that different. Before Jesus died on the Cross, it was a lot harder to go to Heaven, as you had to atone for your sins. Jesus died for us, and took all our sins for us.

I haven't read the Bible in ages, but a loving God would not grow weary of people. At school (went to a religious school) we were taught that God's love was unconditional. Him growing weary of us was something I was never taught, but I could be wrong on that.

Quote:

Why would a God who is perfect and all-knowing diliberately choose prophets to falsely send his message?

People aren't talking about the propherts who wrote it. They're talking about the people who translated it.

Coren · 04-22-2004, 09:27 PM

Grhm, is what you're getting at the idea that all arguements against gay marraige are religious? I'm not sure, it seems like you say that at one point and not at others.

Now, as for it being an "institution" and shouldn't be changed..I find great fault with that. Once, slavery was an institution. Once, interracial marraige was illegal. And there was a majority who believed that was a good thing, and a minority who didn't. Generations removed from this, we'd for the most part agree that this change was good. But if we simply left things alone because that's how they used to be, we'd get no social change at all, these being just two examples.

Now, you suggest marraiged isn't a right. I'm curious as to how you define a right, and as to what specifically you define marraige as.

Also, I'm curious about this. You said that lawmaker's morality would be the compas followed to make laws, essentially. And if they find something immoral, they'd certainly be against that. And for the most part, I'd agree with you in that respect. However, why do they find homosexual marraige immoral? Is it because of their religion? And if so, is that not violating our freedom of religion by forcing us to live by the creed they hold and not necessarily our own?

GrhmLz · 04-22-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
I think that's rude of you to say.

Well, I don't. When you bring forward the argument that the bible is mistranslated, it is a llegitimate inquiry. You are bringing forth that you accept "a word of God" exists. And here is the problem. Many people here speak of an all-loving God and claim God is religion. Well, how do you know that God is an all-loving God? You would have to have received these teachings from somewhere which are based off of the bible when you are a Christian. This demonstrates that "picking and choosing" what one wants to accept as truth. Because if you subscribe to the theory that the bible has been mistranslated, then you have to accept the possibility that God is not an all-loving God.

Quote:

Originally posted by Airbear:
I don't think she's basing her opinions on the Bible due to her disagreement. Maybe, like all literary critics, she's taking into account the writers' biases in every word of the book.

Yeah. How do you know that the writers' are biased? You are assuming that they are biased. What if they aren't?

Galatians 1:6-10 The New Testament:

No Other Gospel: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a differnt gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned. Am I now trying to the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to serve men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Amen.

P.S: I think your comparison of slavery and sexism to homosexual marriage is appalling and completey used inappropriately. Slavery and sexism were institutions that African Americans and Women were forced into. NOBODY is forced into the Institution of Marriage. African Americans and Women were not fighting so they can marry. They were fighting for basic human rights that you and I have regardless of whether or not we are married. That argument is the biggest crock because it pales in comparison. How dare anybody compare "marriage" with the physcial abuse of slaves or the civil rights movement of the 1960s? As for women being blocked from education? There was a basis for a claim of discrimination there because one gender was allowed to receive education and the other was not. There is no gender discrimation in marriage because both men and women are allowed to marry each other.

And the bible didn't preach that slavery and sexism was justified? Mankind created those institutions through his own free-will and it is told of in the bible.

Coren · 04-22-2004, 09:52 PM

Yeah. Because civil rights for homosexuals are completely different from civil rights for women or african americans. I understand now...

Were there people who are revered in the bible who were sexist or had slaves? I'm fairly sure there were. What about the kings who had many wives? You wouldn't argue that marriage between one man and several women is ok would you?

Online Player · 04-22-2004, 10:15 PM

I have no problem with gay marriage, I don't understand the religious thing..Even if you believe that the men who wrote it were guided by God, didn't God give us free will to do what we want, so isn't it feasible to think that those men used that free will to change something?

Timeo · 04-22-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

...I think your comparison of slavery and sexism to homosexual marriage is appalling and completey used inappropriately. Slavery and sexism were institutions that African Americans and Women were forced into. NOBODY is forced into the Institution of Marriage. African Americans and Women were not fighting so they can marry. They were fighting for basic human rights that you and I have regardless of whether or not we are married.

True, nobody is forced to marry anyone that they don't want to, but the right to marry is a fundamental one, and should not be denied to anyone anyway. Blacks were fighting for basic human rights, and women were fighting for additional rights that they hadn't accumulated yet. Whether you see it or not, gays and lesbians and other supporters are fighting for the continuation of this tradition of inalienable and unquestionable rights. The right to marry is equally as important as any other basic human right, and in this modern age of human rights and what not, how can one say to a male, "You can't go get married to your boyfriend" yet go to a female and say that she can get married to her boyfriend? Whether religious dogma dictates it incorrect or sinful, it is simply unacceptable. Period.

Quote:

And the bible didn't preach that slavery and sexism was justified? Mankind created those institutions through his own free-will and it is told of in the bible

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. (Deuteronomy 20: 10-11)

If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22: 2-3)

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Deuteronomy 5:21)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Just a few that I picked off the web while casually surfing.

AirBear · 04-22-2004, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Yeah. How do you know that the writers' are biased? You are assuming that they are biased. What if they aren't?

Every human being and writer is biased.

**In Fair Verona** · 04-23-2004, 10:24 AM

I think that comparing slavery to homosexual marriage makes perfect sense. But there are many aspects to slavery, and we're definetly not comparing the pain and suffering that the African Americans went through. Not at all, or the fact that they were forced into slavery. I think we're talking about the fact that African Americans were denied human rights. Many different groups in society were, and have been, and in this country, they've all won those rights. Women and their right to vote, African Americans and their human rights, inter-racial marriage, etc...

It might take time, but I can bet you anything that one day, same sex marriage will be allowed. Probably not during Bush's term, but one day, it will definetly be allowed.

[ 04-23-2004: Message edited In Fair Verona ]

Lexi A. · 04-23-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:
Arguments against gay marriage are going to be based on God or Religious beliefs. There is no getting pass that. You don't have to be religious to be against homosexuality. You may just believe in God and the laws of the bible but have no religion that you are affiliated with.

I understand that YOUR reasoning for why homosexuality is wrong is based on YOUR beliefs. What I'm wondering is why can't anyone present an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve religious views.

I am not religious. In many ways, organized religion bothers me. However, I am a very spiritual person. I believe in an all-loving, perfect God and I feel that I have my own personal relationship with Him.

Quote:

Okay, asking this question of a person opposed to homosexual marriage with religious beliefs is like asking a person in support of homosexual marriage to please think outside of: love and civil rights!

I don't get the comparison. As a US citizen, we have freedom of religion. We can be Christian, Jewish, atheist...the list could go on forever. A government can't please everyone's belief system because there are so many, and the government isn't supposed to run on religious terms anyway.

But how can you think outside of civil rights? As Americans we're all supposed to be entitled to certain rights and to be treated a certain way. That is a constant, unlike religion.

Quote:

They are God's terms and not mine. I just follow God's terms.

Yes, we know that you follow God's terms. Not everyone interprets God's terms the way you do. Not everyone even interprets God in general the way you do. Not everyone believes there even is a God.

Quote:

Secondly, you're right. The world doesn't always operate according to God's terms. That is why we have those "bigger" issues such as "War" and "Famine" and "division by religion" throughout the world.

Mankind is who has caused the suffering of the world. And so many of those wars and divisions you speak of would have never happened if people just let people live and not cause so much chaos based on religious differences.

Quote:

Everyone carries a belief system with them wherever they go.

Yes, this is true. Politicians, however, are supposed to take into account people's civil rights, the opinions of the public, and what is best for the public overall. Sometimes that means going against their personal idealogy. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't be in politics.

Quote:

Freedom of Religion only protects you against being forced under a religious institution and doesn't guarantee you protection against hearing about it or people basing their value systems on it. Freedom of Speech? It still exists, you know.

I have no problem with hearing about your religious views. I'm glad we live in a place where we can hear more than one view. All I'm saying is that while you can find homosexuality wrong for yourself because of your religion, you can't make millions of people live under the rules of your religion, and no one else can either.

Quote:

I don't believe homosexuals are being discriminated against because I don't believe Marriage is a right.

I believe marriage is a right. As someone else said, if I apply for a marriage license, I have a right to get it.

I'm not suggesting that churchs who have religions against homosexuality should be forced to marry gay people. But if homosexuals want to go to the courthouse to get married or find a church that is open to marrying them, what's wrong with that? How does it bother or threaten you? You worry about you and let them worry about them.

Quote:

God is loving and perfect but God is also vengeful.

I still find that to be a contradiction. To me, God is perfect but no human is. Humans can be vengeful, hateful, prejudging, and biased. If God is perfect, He could possess no human characteristic. I would not want to worship a God who was prone to the same negativity and hatred that humans show on this earth.

Quote:

Why would a God who is perfect and all-knowing diliberately choose prophets to falsely send his message? How do you know that they were gifted with "automatic writing" in which the Holy Spirit comes through the hand when the person writes?

As someone else explained for me, I am talking about the translaters and all those who, over time, have decided what should and shouldn't be left in the bible. They are humans, humans have bias and have alterior motives (some do have the idea that certain books were left out in order for the Church to hold onto its power, just an example)...I cannot blindly trust what could have been done to a document written thousands of years ago.

Quote:

What from the bible is altered? If you don't have faith, what do you consider to be altered? Is it just the parts pertaining to homosexuality or everything you decide to disagree with?

Who can know for sure what has been altered? See my statements above.

I'm not picking and choosing. I generally cannot blindly accept that what is in the bible I have in my home is 100% accurate or untouched by mankind.

[ 04-23-2004: Message edited Lexi A. ]

Katis · 04-23-2004, 12:21 PM

Well here's a question that I asked before but didn't get an answer to. If marriage is not a right, then you should have no problem with the government deciding to just abolish marriage altogether, not allowing heterosexual couples to wed either. After all we wouldn't be taking rights away from them.

[ 04-23-2004: Message edited Katis ]

alli balli · 04-23-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:


As for women being blocked from education? There was a basis for a claim of discrimination there because one gender was allowed to receive education and the other was not. There is no gender discrimation in marriage because both men and women are allowed to marry each other.

Whether or not there is "gender discrimination" in regards to marriage is totally irrelevant (and makes little sense. Did anyone even suggest that there was in the first place?) No; what we have in the current situation is that one sexual oreintation is allowed to receive the benefits and titles that come with marriage and the other is not. And therefore, we have discrimination.

sevennationarmy · 04-23-2004, 03:54 PM

Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue. So what if two people who are in a loving relationship happen to be of the same sex? If they're in love, they should be allowed to marry, and that should be that. Unfortunately, it's not.

migamoo · 04-23-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bugs8476:

It may not be taught know, because i graduated last year too, but i talking in future reference.
Well, they talk about sex in a health class, so if your talking in general, the subject will pop eventually.

When children are taught sex-ed in school, they have to get permission from the parent. If a parent doesn't want their child taught sex-ed, the student will be sent out of the room to do something else. It was like this all three times when I was taught sex-ed (5th grade, 6th grade, and 12th grade in health class). i don't know about you, but when i was in sex-ed all that was talked about was reproduction : male/female reproductive organs & pregnancy/ways to prevent (but not abortion), STDs/ways to prevent. Like I said, abortion is too taboo to be talked about, and homosexuality is going to be the same way. It's never going to be talked about in school unless it's between the students. Teachers are not going to talk about it, it's not going to be in the ciriculim.

Katis I agree, if homosexuals are not allowed to be married, then it wouldn't seem right for heterosexuals to be married. What I don't get is why marriage has to be a double-edged sword. It's ok for heterosexuals but not homosexuals? If one is allowed, both should be. If one is not allowed, both shouldn't be.

Ashley