News & Politics - Same Sex Marriage Continued - Page 9

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeo:
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)

These passages to not prove that God perpetuated slavery or sexism. God speaks to different times and things were administered differently at different times. Because of this, we witness that some things are no longer done as they were once before but God's word is always with us. That does not change.

These passages that you have provided only demonstrate, more so, that the bible has not been twisted by man. The bible shows these atrocities as how they were. It does not attempt to cover up these atrocities something that mankind is known for because mankind is always concerned about the way it appears to others. The purpose of the bible would have been defeated if all the acts of "wickedness" that occurred would have been covered up. The purpose is to show that all sinners are given what God offers if he chooses to follow the path. Therefore, the bible is an accurate account of history during those times. It details the sufferings, murder, adultry, and homosexul acts as it occured while at the same time detailing faithfulness and righteousness.

Therefore, the so-called "mistranslation" of the bible and "different interpretations" does not completely hold up. While it is true that two people can read a passage in scripture and get receive a different meaning, there is still a state of "right reasoning" that goes behind interpretation. There is no compromising what is right in God's word. Therefore, when two people people read scripture and receive a different meaning it is dependent upon right reasoning. Different interpretations are dependant upon leading to the "absolute" right of God's laws. If you make the choice to accept God's word, you will know the correct intepretations. It will be provided to you through the Holy Spirit.

The bible reveals God speaking in "absolute terms" and "comparative terms." This is how one can distinguish between contradiction in the bible. For example:

These passages appear to contradict each other in the bible:

Judge not, lest ye be judged
Judge righteous judgment

Jesus was not saying not to judge at all to the people. God was saying when you judge, judge righteously! If we couldn't judge, how would be determine between "false prophets"? The bible preaches "beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and tells us "ye shall know them by their fruits." When Jesus told us not to judge, he also adminstered the proper way to make judgments.

God says these words "judge righteous judgment" to people whom have the capacity to pass judgment. Therefore, when people pass judgment when they proclaim "homosexual acts" to be immoral they are passing righteous judgment because homosexuality is against God's laws. They are not judging for themselves that "homosexal acts" are wrong, but according to God's Word.

dyxlecis gril · 04-24-2004, 10:38 AM

how can you say that denying gay people rights isn't an atrocity, and slavery is? it's still oppression.

how can you say that denying someone health care simply because you disagree with how they live their lives, isn't an atrocity? going with your whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" thing, do you think a drug addict would be denied health care simply because of their lifestyle?

do not oppress me. i will not take it. i have the right (yes. yes, i do) to live my life the way i want to, as long as i'm not physically hurting someone.

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sevennationarmy:
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.

It is an issue because marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman.

If you decide to ignore religion/God as a motivating factor, there is still no basis for a legal argument. The state created marriage to be a contract between a man and a woman. It is not a contract based on sexual orientation. It is not a contract for people that remain single and it is not a contract for two people of the same gender. There is no legal precedent here.

The state may not completely recongnize "religious marriage" (and I say not completely because pastors, ministers, or priests etc... are required to sign off on the marriage license provided by the State when they perform the ceremony instead of a Justice of the Peace) but the state doesn't recongnize "love" or "sexual orientation" either as a basis for marriage. It is specifically for a male person and a female person put together.

The State will base marriage off of its own state interest. That interest will depend on the people who are operating the State. They may be people who carry religious ideals or they may not

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Katis:
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 ]

Marriage isn't a right because it is a contract that was established by the state for a man and a woman to enter into. The concept of "marriage", in the legal arena, was created through "state interest" and not as a right for the people.

Personally, I would never be married by a justice of the peace because I acknowledge that marriage is a sacred union created by God for a man and a woman to love one another and procreate. I know that the state has no interest in my reasons for wanting to marry. It is just that I would be required by law to apply for a marriage license so that the state recognizes it as a legal union. Therefore, if my "marriage" was only to be recongnized by God and the Church, I wouldn't have a problem with it because that is where it really counts. With God!

However, the state abolishing marriage between a man and a woman does not seem like a very realistic possiblity. At least not right now. The only time I see the State abolishing marriage is if it is no longer to their benefit.

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alli balli:
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.

Your argument that marriage is a right makes little sense. Marriage was never a right. It is and always has been a contract created by the state for a man and a woman to enter into to. This contract isn't based on love or sexual orientation. The state's contract can care less if someone is in love or what someone's orientation is. This is not discrimination.

As for your argument about benefits and titles associated with marriage? It's suppose to discriminate. Those benefits aren't provided by the state because these benefits aren't payed for by the state. Single people do not receive the same benefits that married people do; despite their sexual orientation.

It sounds like you are saying that state marriage should be based on sexual orientation so that homosexual individuals can marry through the state. Secondly, the state can care less about a married couples' "sex life." The only intersest they have in a married couples' "sex life" is procreation. But the state can care less if you and your partner consent to never have sex in the marriage. It is a "conjugal right" of marriage but people can ultimately do as they please within their marriage. The State doesn't go around knocking door to door to force married couples to have sex. My reason for introducing this reasoning about sexual activity in marriage is to demonstrate why marriage is simply a legal contract between a male person and a female person and nothing more.

Since sexual activity is essentially irrelvant, unless one of the partners makes it an issue before the court to seek an annullment or divorce, homosexual partners are in no different of a position than really good friends of the same gender whom reside together. The only difference is these good friends to not have sexual desire for one another nor are they involved in sexual activiy with one another. But they can still love each other because of friendship. They can live with each other and consider the other to be like family. They can communicate, compromise, and live like partners sharing living accomadations. They can share every aspect of each other's lives like family would. Why shouldn't they be entitled to these benefits since they love each other and reside with each other in the same living quarters? On the other hand, a boyfriend and girlfriend that are romantically involved, but not married, can't receive these benefits either unless they live in a state that recognizes common law marriage.

The answer is because these benefits are provided to a married man and woman in marriage. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has nothing to do with sexual desire, and nothing to do with sex in general. The state marriage contract is between a man and woman.

In conclusion, it is not enough to claim "discrimination" in every instance that someone else has something someone else can not. Many people in American subscibe to the "American Drean" and own their own homes. Is that really a right though? And because some people own them and others do not, homes should just handed out to everyone free of charge? There are hard-working individuals that would claim that they work just as hard as the person that owns a home but don't make enough money. My point here is that you can not only make the claim that state marriage is discrimating on "sexual orientation." Otherwise, you would have to allow the argument that it is discriminating on "relationship status." Because there are single people, friendships, and romantic relationships between boyfriends and girlfriends that do not qualify for these benefits either.

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dyxlecis gril:
how can you say that denying someone health care simply because you disagree with how they live their lives, isn't an atrocity? going with your whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" thing, do you think a drug addict would be denied health care simply because of their lifestyle?

do not oppress me. i will not take it. i have the right (yes. yes, i do) to live my life the way i want to, as long as i'm not physically hurting someone.

If you read my post more carefully, you would have have known what I said.

I stated that personally, if I had been a doctor, I would not deny treatment to someone who led a homosexual lifestyle. I am not a vindictive person, I do not condone violence and I am not looking to rid the world of gay people. But that does not mean that I have to support gay marriage either. In accordance with God and my religion, I don't condone it as a proper lifestyle and I can't support it in the legal arena.

You keeping trying to argue about rights but I have already explained why I don't see marriage as a right. I am not opressing you. You already are able to live your life the way you choose. Homosexual relationships aren't illegal. You can do whatever you please.

AirBear · 04-24-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

If you decide to ignore religion/God as a motivating factor, there is still no basis for a legal argument. The state created marriage to be a contract between a man and a woman. It is not a contract based on sexual orientation. It is not a contract for people that remain single and it is not a contract for two people of the same gender. There is no legal precedent here.

Then AGAIN by your reasoning, there was no legal precedent to allow blacks into higher education along with women, so really we all should be put back in our places, as education was an institution set up by the state for white males.

Quote:

I am not opressing you. You already are able to live your life the way you choose. Homosexual relationships aren't illegal. You can do whatever you please.

Yes you are and no she's not. She's not allowed to choose to marry her partner, you're taking that choice away from her, denying her and all homosexuals access to that institution, thus you are discriminating. She cannot do whatever she pleases, she cannot marry a woman.

Pretty soon, just like slavery, civil rights, and feminism, the progressive changes will take place and all those in support of discrimination will be seen as the evil ones in the situation just like racists, slaveholders, and sexists ten years down the road. Except for maybe in Mississippi [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

dyxlecis gril · 04-24-2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:
You already are able to live your life the way you choose. Homosexual relationships aren't illegal. You can do whatever you please.

no, beause i cannot marry. and only married people have the right to live in the country of their spouse/signifigant other. i cannot live with my signifigant other in her country, because our relationship isn't recognized. no one cares.

immigration laywers who are hired to give gays and lesbians advice on how to get into the country even suggest marrying someone of the opposite sex, because if you can't get a student visa, that's pretty much your only option. even if i married her here, it wouldn't be recognized.

my relationship with my signifigant other is as important as any relationship you might have with a man in the future. THIS is my point.

it's injustice, because you are allowed to do something i'm not. and we are supposed to be equals. i don't like religions, but i'm not going to try to take it away from you, because you have the right to believe. if you deny me the right to be with my signifigant other, you are denying me the right to be happy. and THAT is a RIGHT.

Coren · 04-24-2004, 01:40 PM

Marraige is an institution between just a man and a woman. That doesn't explain how it's not a right, but let's go with this.

First, why is it just that? You stated that love isn't a factor to the state..so perhaps it's financial considerations? And let's not forget the ever-popular getting someone into the country permanently via marraige either. Or insurance benefits and the like.

Is that why it's just a man/woman thing? So people can discriminate against homosexuals? If not, could you give a reason why the state, not religion, won't allow it? And "that's the way it is, and that's the way it was" isn't really valid. See also: Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights movement, etc.

Further, if you don't think a marraige is valid except in the eyes of your God..why are you even opposed? If they aren't getting married in church, as most can't, then it won't be in God's eyes (after all, you said you wouldn't get married by a Justice fo the Peace for that reason). So why the fuss? God won't recognize it because no church will do it. And if there IS a church who will do that, that's a matter for your faith to take care of, not for the government to get involved in by imposing blanket restrictions on homosexuals as a whole.

Let's go to the Green Card thing. If I know this girl in Australia that I really care about, and who wants to move here, I can marry her and she'll become a citizen. So far so good right? We're in a relationship so that works.

But that ability is denied to those who are homosexual. And since they can't marry the person they're interested in, they either have to find another way into the country (difficult at best) have their love interest relocate (which is problematic as well, especially to countries that don't have English as their primary language) or have a sham marraige. And the INS reallllly isn't fond of the fake marraige thing. They do checks to make sure that people really are in a relationship. Which does sort of go agains the state not caring, doesn't it?

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 02:54 PM

First off, higher education has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract set up by the state for a man and woman to enter into. Higher education is not. They don't compare because women/higher education dealt with "gender discrimination" and homosexual marriage deals with what others claim is "sexual orientation." Higher education was granted access to men only. Women were being discriminated against based on their gender alone. Marriage deals with a contract created by the state for a man and a woman. "Sexual orientation" plays no role in that contract. Anyone can enter into marriage so long as they abide by the rules of the contract.

Also, slavery does not compare with your argument. Slaves were forced into slavery and homosexuals are not being forced into marriage.

Secondly, where in the U.S. law does it say the marriage is a right for you, for me, or for anyone? It doesn't. And I don't need to hear "because you have the right to marry whoever you want! The same rule still applies to me that applies to you or anybody else. It has to be with a man if you are a woman and a woman if you are a man. That is what the state marriage contract says.

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
Yes you are and no she's not. She's not allowed to choose to marry her partner, you're taking that choice away from her, denying her and all homosexuals access to that institution, thus you are discriminating. She cannot do whatever she pleases, she cannot marry a woman.

That is where you are wrong. The only oppression that is going on here is an oppression against God and morality.

She is not being denied access into marriage in the legal arena. The problem is she doesn't agree with the standards governing marriage because of her "sexual orientation" but she is free to marry so long as she abides by the rules of the contract. The governing standard is that she has to enter into the contract with another man, just like I have to or any other woman has to. She can walk in and apply for a marriage license but she chooses not to because she doesn't want to marry a man. If she doesn't want to do that, she has the choice not to. Her "sexual orientation" has no bearing because the state didn't base the marriage standard on "sexual orientation." The state based it on being a man and a woman. Nothing more and nothing less.

And how am I taking anything away from her or in a position to take anything away from her? I thought this was a discussion thread to share our points of view? I highly doubt that the "Secret Police Against Homosexuals Acts" is watching this thread now and will show up at her house tonight to arrest her if she is caught with her girlfriend? No, she is arguing, along with many others, about benefits and titles associated with marriage that other groups of people don't receive as either.

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
Pretty soon, just like slavery, civil rights, and feminism, the progressive changes will take place and all those in support of discrimination will be seen as the evil ones in the situation just like racists, slaveholders, and sexists ten years down the road. Except for maybe in Mississippi [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

Yeah. Huh-uh. The only thing is that slavery, civil rights, and the women's movement (I don't use the word feminsism because some radicals fall right into the same category as chauvinists) were positive changes based on actual discrimination.

There is no argument for discriminaton against homosexuals on marriage. They have the right to marry just like I do. They just don't like the standards that govern marriage because they want marriage to be about "sexual orientation."

[ 04-24-2004: Message edited GrhmLz ]

AirBear · 04-24-2004, 03:04 PM

Geez, I really don't envy you in any way. All I can do is shake my head.

Just please, for sanity's sake, stop twisting around the law when you obviously have never been educated on it.

Quote:

First off, higher education has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract set up by the state for a man and woman to enter into. Higher education is not. They don't compare because women/higher education dealt with "gender discrimination" and homosexual marriage deals with what others claim is "sexual orientation."

Higher education is an institution that has been as historically discriminative as marriage in the United States, so yes, they have very much to do with each other.

Quote:

Higher education was granted access to men only. Women were being discriminated against based on their gender alone.

Marriage was/is only granted to heterosexual people. Homosexuals are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation alone.

Quote:

Marriage deals with a contract created by the state for a man and a woman. "Sexual orientation" plays no role in that contract. Anyone can enter into marriage so long as they abide by the rules of the contract.

Yes, and what we're saying is that the current "contract" is unfair and discriminatory. And no, not anyone can enter into marriage in this country. Jesus H. Roman (tm TWoP), gender is not a person's master status. My gender/sex is not all I am and all I will bring to any future marriage I have. Sexual orientation, love, romantic feelings have everything to do with marriage. You don't just go pick a random male and say "hey, let's get hitched, you're the opposite sex, so now we can be part of this contract!"

Quote:

Yeah. Huh-uh. The only thing is that slavery, civil rights, and the women's movement (I don't use the word feminsism because some radicals fall right into the same category as chauvinists) were positive changes based on actual discrimination.

Not allowing a certain group of people to participate in an institution is discrimination, that is exactly what is going on here. And the majority of people were for slavery, against civil rights, and against feminism, so I'm sure, much like you today, they did not see these things as "positive" changes.

Quote:

There is no argument for discriminaton against homosexuals on marriage. They have the right to marry just like I do. They just don't like the standards that govern marriage because they want marriage to be about "sexual orientation."

Homosexuals do not have the right to marry just like you do. Do you know how horribly mean you're being? Oh, you're attracted to and love the same sex, but stop whining, you can just suck it up and marry the opposite sex.

[ 04-24-2004: Message edited AirBear ]

dyxlecis gril · 04-24-2004, 03:13 PM

hah, that's like saying, if i was interested in men, that i had to marry another man than the one i fell in love with, because the government didn't approve of him. "yeah, no, you can't marry this guy, he's no good, you have to marry THIS one, otherwise we won't give you the marriage lisence."

GrhmLz · 04-24-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
Geez, I really don't envy you in any way. All I can do is shake my head.

Well, you don't have to be. Who really cares?

Quote:

Originally posted by AirBear:
Just please, for sanity's sake, stop twisting around the law when you obviously have never been educated on it.

[img]smilies/lol.gif[/img] Well, ironically yes I have! I'm a law student.

So, let me give you a little education about the law. Law is all about interpretation. The words are "twisted" by attornies all the time when they argue their case before court. It is based which side can present the better argument and not on what is right or wrong.

AirBear · 04-24-2004, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Well, ironically yes I have! I'm a law student.

So, let me give you a little education about the law. Law is all about interpretation. The words are "twisted" by attornies all the time when they argue their case before court. It is based which side can present the better argument and not on what is right or wrong.

Heaven help the judicial system [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img].

All written word is about interpretation, obviously. You've just moved way beyond twisting the law, in my own interpretation, of course [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

Quote:

That is where you are wrong. The only oppression that is going on here is an oppression against God and morality.

This country is not supposed to support one religion or one God above another, so that really shouldn't matter legally. Morality is relative, not objective. You can still honor God and practice your own morality, you are just not allowed to force either upon others.

[ 04-24-2004: Message edited AirBear ]

dyxlecis gril · 04-24-2004, 03:19 PM

even murderers who are locked up in prison have the right to marry who they want. i was under the impression that murder was the biggest sin of all.