| Author | Message | ||
     Buellinmke |
Not everyone in the United States is Christian. Why should we base our laws on emotional, hand-wringing religious beliefs? I've seen enough of that in the middle east to know that nothing good comes of it. Not everyone needs a religion in order to be moral. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Here we go again.  | ||
| Moxnix |
Love it. Non-Christians know all about Christians and their values. | ||
| Blake |
Joe, >>> Not everyone in the United States is Christian. Agreed. >>> Why should we base our laws on emotional, hand-wringing religious beliefs? We shouldn't. I'd add that we shouldn't base our laws on any emotional, hand-wringing, period. Agreed too that theocracies suck. >>> Not everyone needs a religion in order to be moral. Absolutely agree. If you imagine that the core of Christianity is to make people moral, you'd off base. None of the arguments presented here opposing a redefinition of marriage invoked religion. Why are you? (Message edited by blake on January 05, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Although I believe homosexuality to be wrong biblically, MY argument wasn't at all religious. | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake, I do agree with the premise that if we wish ill on homosexuals, were are not living as Christ intended. However, misquoting Matthew and then taking that quote out of context is no way to get his point across. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What I find odd is the fact that someone would leave a discussion board because they hold a minority viewpoint. As a Christian, the MAJORITY of bulletinboards I frequent are run by people who are not only not Christian but are antagonistic to Christianity. I've NEVER given the "I'm taking my ball and going home" speech in the face of their viewpoint. Wyatt just never believed that my participation was that vital. The discussions will continue without my participation, and the overriding opinion of the group and the powers that be is "don't let the door hit you". Badweb is unique in that it IS moderated by many people who hold Christian beliefs. If that bothers you, there are other boards moderated by people who don't hold Christian beliefs. If that's your fancy, seek out what works for you best. We'll try to manage without you. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I've had enough of the pages & pages of the same old merry-go-round. Look it's very simple if you've been here any length of time you know who holds views on what & why. It's pointless going over the same ground again & again, then getting all personal when the board owner & mods don't agree with you. Even though I fundamentally disagree with most of them on many many issues they're much too polite to spell it out, but I'm not, so here it is in black & white. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE F*** OFF! There that should save some bandwidth. | ||
| Moxnix |
Grumpy, don't sugar coat it!  | ||
| Blake |
Jeff, Misquote? I assume you are talking about his addition of "Gomorrah" to the quote of Mat 11:24 or his use of "you" in place of "that city" in Mat 10:15? Either way, technically a misquote, yes. But hardly objectionable. Mat 10:15 (NASB): "...it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.} Mat 11:24 (ESV): "...it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." >>> taking that quote out of context The quote appears to be in perfect context to me. As I mentioned before, his point is that immoral acts contrary to the will of god (see Sodom and Gomorrah) pale in offensiveness compared to an outright refusal to repent, rejecting grace (see cities that refused to hear the word in ref'd scrip). The context is the relative offensiveness to god of lawbreaking (Sodom) versus a refusal to even recognize god (hear his word). Homosexual behavior being unlawful (Sodom), people hating others being a refusal to hear god's word (the referenced cities). | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Mat 10:15 (NAmerican Sport Bike): "...it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. }Hey Blake, does Al know you're quoting him?  | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake, read before and after that verse. It's talking about being persecuted for being a Christian as you travel through the lands, and that the city that treats you that way will suffer a worse fate than Sodom. It isn't talking about treating others as you would have them treat you or loving your fellow man. So yes, changing "city" to "you" is significant in that it attempts to change the meaning of the verse and the context in which it was written. But I do agree with his premise. I just think he chose the wrong verse to back up his statement. There are plenty of others he could have used without distorting their meaning to make his point. | ||
| Blake |
Thanks Innes. I must assume someone posted and then deleted. I missed it. I received a nasty emotion-drenched email last night. Probably the same angry emotional person. People are funny. | ||
| Blake |
Jeff, I've read the entire gospel, chapter included. Dr. Craig listed two verses, Mat 10:15 and 11:24, both addressing the same issue. I strongly disagree with your interpretation. Those scriptures are not talking about persecution at all. They are talking about those who refuse to repent, meaning those who refuse to hear the word.
That NAmerican Sport Bike version is a new one! Thanks for catching that Innes. LOL. | ||
| Hootowl |
Oh, I do agree that the chapter is talking about spreading the Word, but the the next verse reads "Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues" The reference the author makes is in relationship to loving gays and not wishing ill upon them, and that if you do, you're not being very Christ-like. The verses he reference are not about that at all, unless you change "city" to "you" and take it out of context. I want to stress gain that I agree with the message. I just think he could have used a more applicable biblical reference to drive his point home. | ||
| Hibbs |
Doesn't it all boil down to a question of whether religious beliefs should be used a basis for legislation? (Message edited by Hibbs on January 07, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
This is a long thread. Doesn't it all boil down to a question of whether religious beliefs should be used a basis for legislation? Yes and no. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, marriage (or civil unions) are strictly a State's rights issue. As far as the states are concerned, marriage is the shorthand term for the legal status of civil union. Marriage is and has always been a religious institution, but legally the joining of two people is a civil union as far as the states are concerned. Therefore the issues are twofold: First, the desire is to gain legal status for same sex "marriages" in enough states so that a claim can be made for both Constitutional Incorporation (Federal law being applied to state and local governments over the powers granted by the 10th Amendment) and the Supremacy Clause (whereby laws which conflict between State and Federal law, the Federal law wins). The intent is to provide the framework for protection under the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Second, the goal and aim under the homosexual agenda is to socially co-opt the historically religious institution of marriage in an effort to gain greater social acceptance of a lifestyle consistently held abominable by God and the church. This second aim is truly the primary aim. Gay couples aren't really interested in having the same legal obligations of heterosexual joinings with regard to the equitable dividing of assets at time of divorce or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders with regard to qualified plan distributions. While the right to make medical and legal decisions for a "spouse" has been touted as a right held only for heterosexual couples, these legal privileges are easily gained by simple legal documents most of which would cost less than $1000 to draft by any halfway competent attorney. Were simply the legal protections granted under civil unions the goal, most in this country, the religious included, would have no issue. When offered this title as a solution to the issues brought forth, the resounding reply was rejection of civil unions. The goal is the term "marriage". All marriages are technically conducted by a government official. The Justice of the Peace or the Clergyman is simply acting as the witness to the proceeding.   The legal documents filed with the state are the ONLY ones that matter for the purposes of civil unions/marriages. The goal, of "gay marriage" advocates is to gain the trappings and acceptance of religion and society, to gain acceptance for a lifestyle. | ||
| Hibbs |
Good points. I'm not entirely sure if all those advocating for legal civil unions share the same agenda, but it seems reasonable some do. So to restate/revise my question, if its done legally, what's the beef? Why do some people feel it threatens or degrades the religious concept of marriage? I am trying to figure out why anyone feels that the legalization of "gay marriage" or civil unions somehow devalues or lessens their own marriages, in terms of its significance within their own church and their own beliefs? Maybe that's not what they're saying - but that's how I've been interpreting it. It seems like some people find the entire concept of homosexuality so revolting that seek to oppose whatever its advocates support -whether it actually impacts them or not | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
if its done legally, what's the beef? The beef is working to co-opt a religious institution for many in order to justify a lifestyle that many who are religious are against under the false pretenses of equal protection under the law. Why do some people feel it threatens or degrades the religious concept of marriage? I am trying to figure out why anyone feels that the legalization of "gay marriage" or civil unions somehow devalues or lessens their own marriages, in terms of its significance within their own church and their own beliefs? Legalization of civil unions doesn't. As a Christian I really wouldn't have a problem with that. It's the insistence of the social recognition of "marriage" between two men equal to marriage between a man an a woman. If the state of TN began bestowing upon meter maids the title of "priest", do you think that would coincide with what the catholic church views as the proper assignment of the title priest? When Sally Struthers hands you your doctorate diploma from her International Correspondence School, do you believe it has equal weight with one handed out from Harvard? Whether a gay couple is "married" or not doesn't change my relationship at all, but to me calling a homosexual couple "married" is the equivalent to them calling themselves "Doctor". | ||
| Kenm123t |
Hey FT whos from WV? Some one in your family ? we have a hunting camp there | ||
| Hibbs |
Ok then. You said above you wouldn't have a problem with legalization of civil unions, correct? Then isn't a lot of this just semantics? Your "Doctor" point was a stretch, but what about the term "doctor"? Those with physicians with MD or DO (provided they pass boards, I think) are legally entitled to call themselves "Doctor". So are dentists, veterinarians, and people with PhDs in 18th Century French Literature. Same term, different things. I would argue the term Doctor isn't limited to medicine and the term marriage shouldn't be limited to heterosexual unions. The term marriage may have originated in religions, but times and definitions change | ||
| Kenm123t |
Opps the reason LBGTE what ever, want marriage is Validation of their perversion. Its time to tell these losers to not waste the time trying to convert popular opinion of the Life style. We are not homophobic we really dont care what they do! FACT they are Hetrophobic they complain some one they attack is Homophobic the real reason is they are doing something deep down they know is wrong and want approval to be able to deal with their personal issues. The old test is most folks are guilty of what they accuse some one of. When your accused of Intolerance look at the source of the attack and deal with the person swiftly and decisively. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I fully agree with you Hibbs, but after 12 pages I doubt many positions will change much. It's a question of "point of view" to my mind, but I don't get hung up on the words. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Then isn't a lot of this just semantics? I don't know. Ask the GLBT folks who refused to have all the rights and privileges sought under civil unions and refused it/refuse it. The EXACT term "marriage", and the social acceptance of the term, is what is sought. Anything less, regardless of what it accomplishes, is simply not enough. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Hey FT whos from WV? Some one in your family ? we have a hunting camp there Nah. Google is my friend. | ||
| Hibbs |
Mr G - Totally agree not many positions will change. I've enjoyed what I thought has been a civil and unemotional discussion. Really - no sarcasm here. And this is not a personal attack on Ken but I see a glaring contradiction when someone says they don't care what a certain group does while simultaneously calling them losers and perverted. That's an incongruent statement. And I would call the deduction that this group is looking for validation of a behavior and that "they are doing something they know deep down is wrong" is just plain conjecture. How can someone really know why someone else does something? We can't. It's human nature to try and explain things we really don't understand in ways that do make sense to us. But that's a far cry from making those explanations correct. The thing, I think, that makes some of us more open to diversity is we accept things we don't really understand rather than try to make those things fit into our own value system. It's probably a mistake to label anyone who is unaccepting of homosexuality as homophobic. Many aren't literally afraid of it, but they may find it personally disgusting or not at all in line with their own religious beliefs. So what's my point? Surely I'm an advocate for same sex civil unions. I don't care if they are called "marriages", "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". Nor do I care if the individuals are called "husband and wife", "husband and husband", or "doctor" (that ones for you fatty). And again I think Grumpy's correct - its unlikely anything I say is really going to change many ( if any) opinions. But I'm still curious why some people seem to think their own personal and religious beliefs are more important to our society and legal system than properly enacted legislation. When someone brings the Bible into the discussion as a basis for what should be legally wrong, I think they've just conceded the argument. | ||
| Dj66ftw |
Our society feeds on the productivity of its members,and so gives support to reproductive couples to help them create more of us. There is no good reason for our society to give that support to any union that by it's nature,can not pay off. I have no invisible friends however, and do not fear the monster under the bed, so it may be that i don't belong here. I guess ill stick to the knowledge vault. | ||
| Hibbs |
Dj As the US and world population continues to grow, do you really think we need to continue to add more people than we lose every year? If you go with that logic, why should society support childless heterosexual couples (whether through infertility or choice)more than it supports homosexual couples? Or homosexual copies with children (either adopted or otherwise conceived and born)? Heterosexuals producing offspring is no guarantee of productivity or the advancement (or even maintenance) of society And define productivity? I'd argue there are many very productive homosexual members in society in terms of wages, taxes paid, and advancements in their fields (arts and entertainment, business, medicine, law, sports, literature, politics). (Message edited by Hibbs on January 07, 2012) | ||
| Kenm123t |
hibbs I wasnt talking about their sexual preferences I was talking about the Intolerance of their attacks on those that are not Pro gay. I am tired of hearing how every one that doesnt meet the standard of Pro gay is intolerant. When some says they are not pro gay should they be hounded out of jobs postions or elected office. Glitter bomb attacks are one example of intolerance. Demanding approval from others for private behaviour reveals the the persons own doubts in said behaviour Your a loser if your personal self value is determined by how others perceive your personal relationships. Money fame taxes paid all good deeds mean nothing if their self worth comes from how world sees them. (Message edited by Kenm123t on January 07, 2012) | ||
| Rainman |
I got no problem with gay marriage. I have three friends who are part of gay couples who have been together for 20 years each. I've been married twice and had numerous relationships and all ended wretchedly in that same time frame. Seems to me they're not any worse or better than straights at the relationship thing. They pay taxes. They are equal under the constitution. I don't care what they do. I don't care if they're going to hell or Providence. The Constitution is a secular document written by religious people who feared what religious zealotry could do to a free people. If Democrats would stay out of our wallet and Republicans out of our bedrooms and we spent more time leaving each other the hell alone, maybe things would improve a little. NOTE: Written by an extremely grumpy, moderate Republican (don't exist any more) soon-to-be-ex husband who just paid off a big tax debt. |
