Gay marriage debate

[1549]

What the hell do you think democracy is? I'm not saying anything on gays and marriage cause I really don't give a s*** either way, but listening to the majority is what this country is all about.

Thats why democracy has to be regulated.

 

If the majority group in a country wants to exterminate the other groups, do you think it should happen? Of course not. Listening to the majority is not necessarily what democracy is about. Like a lot of things in this world, it varies by circumstance.

 

As far as gay marriage goes, it would definately be weird to see gay people married. But I am sure we would get used to it after awhile. There have actually been times where straight and gay people have co-existed without any problems in Europe, maybe gays will gain more acceptance here, I really have no idea. I do pray for the children that will be adopted by gay couples. Not because I think their gay parents pose a threat, but because their childhood will be very tough.

 

I guess I don't object to gay marriages, because it is always disheartening seeing groups get scrutinized in society.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Thats why democracy has to be regulated. 

 

If the majority group in a country wants to exterminate the other groups, do you think it should happen?  Of course not.  Listening to the majority is not necessarily what democracy is about.  Like a lot of things in this world, it varies by circumstance.

 

As far as gay marriage goes, it would definately be weird to see gay people married.  But I am sure we would get used to it after awhile.  There have actually been times where straight and gay people have co-existed without any problems in Europe, maybe gays will gain more acceptance here, I really have no idea.  I do pray for the children that will be adopted by gay couples.  Not because I think their gay parents pose a threat, but because their childhood will be very tough.

 

I guess I don't object to gay marriages, because it is always disheartening seeing groups get scrutinized in society.

This has to be the worst argument I've ever heard in defending regulation of a democracy. Do you really believe that rule of law would prevent a population of 150 million (the majority in America) from exterminating the other groups if that was trully the majority opinion? Do you have any idea the behavioral science factors that would play a role in such an opinion? It is silly to even make such an argument in defending the right to ignore 66% of Americans weighing in against gay marriages.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This issue just won't go away. It's like an infestation or virus.

 

I was reading on Law.com about some new stats, studies, & challenges that definitely make this a major issue on the Nov election ballot:

 

- 37 states have passed a DOMA or like IL have a law that restricts marriage to the union of a man & a woman. Ohio was the latest to pass one shortly after Judge in MA declared it legal in that state. MA is the only state in which a judge has made a definitive ruling that the state's constitution does not prevent same sex marriages.

 

- The mayor of SF is issuing marriage licenses to gays, but the state of CA is not recognizing them. On a recent proposition by CA voters 61% are against gay marriage.

 

- Vermont is the only state that has passed a civil union law. But that law pertains only to same sex couples. It's not general to where it extends beyond sexual relationships.

 

- Nation-wide better than 67% of Americans polled are against gay marriages. The number one reason is that they view it an immoral.

 

- Most states have 400 benefits & privledges for married couples & the Fed has about 1000.

 

Personally I'm in support of civil unions because I feel it's the decision that best respects democracy & justice. Since the majority of Americans view marriage as something that is both highly sacred & moral I don't think the govt should dictate a re-definition of that. The majority of Americans still consider gay & lebian lifestyles as degenerate & immoral. So I accept the need for married persons to want to separate themselves in this distinction. On the other side I believe there is injustice not just for gays & lesbians but all persons who seek to form civil unions that may or may not have anything to do with sexual relations. So that's why I believe civil unions should be defined as broad as possible so that the injustice ends w/out the need to challenge the moral opinions of the majority.

 

In the near future I think the liberal acceptance of gays will be challenged both by science & technology. There are studies going on in the UK & the USA researching the impact of chemical inbalance during the pregnancy toward not just sexual preference but gender behavior. There is data being compiled on 1000's of cases of gays unhappy with their childhood or lack of manhood because of their upbringing.

 

Presently there is not enough data to conclude anything one way or the other. But that will change over the next 5-10 yrs. The reason I believe that it will become more difficult is because the world is moving slowly towards a state represented in the movie GATTACCA. The premise for this movie is that mankind has an obligation to strive for genetic perfection. In that world gays will not be accepted. It's kind of scary because what Hitler tried to accomplish by force & failed capitalism will succeed. Instead of primitive ethnic cleansing we'll have genetic cleansing.

[Gene Honda Civic]

This issue just won't go away.  It's like an infestation or virus.

Says the guy who replied to his own topic, after it had laid idle for over a month.

[SuperSteve]

If a man wants to marry a sheep, he should be allowed to.

[Goldmember]

Says the guy who replied to his own topic, after it had laid idle for over a month.

my thoughts exactly...

[BrandoFan]

Ne volnuites' tet'a

D'ad'a na rabot'e

E smotrit'e vi kino

 

 

[Be Good]

Ne volnuites' tet'a

D'ad'a na rabot'e

E smotrit'e vi kino

 

 

 

Ditto. Sounds good

[Wong & Owens]

Ne volnuites' tet'a

D'ad'a na rabot'e

E smotrit'e vi kino

 

 

 

domo arigato, Mr. Roboto?

[Goldmember]

domo arigato, Mr. Roboto?

[israel4ever]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would care whether or not same sex marriages were legal!

[kapkomet]

I'll get flamed for this and called an insensitive Christian know-it-all, but most people are passionate about this because marriage is not supposed to be of the same sex.

 

And I know, I know, you can interpret things all over the place differently to suit whatever you need.

 

Anyway, that's the answer to the question - those darn fanatical Christians mucking everything up.

 

Poster's note: I don't agree with it but I don't hate people for it either.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Kap, the Bible also states that marriage is to be between "one man and one or more women." Why is bigamy illegal? It's in the Bible. (Gen. 29:17-28 and II Samuel 3:2-5)

 

Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to wife or wives (II Sam. 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chron. 11:21)

 

A marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin. If not, she is to be executed. (Deut. 22:13-21)

 

Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Gen. 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30, II Corinth. 6:14)

 

Since marriage is for life, there is no divorce (Deut. 22:19, Mark 10:9-12)

 

Not meant as a slap at you Kap...just if we're gonna have an old fashioned OT gay rights stomping party then we should go full force with everything the Bible says about marriage. It's just food for thought for the fundamentalists.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

i too have no problems with gay people. I do however not feel they should have the same marriage tag as heterosexuals. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are fine with me, but not marriage.

[kapkomet]

Now we get into doctrine. OT vs. NT. OT doctrine has more or less been replaced by NT doctrine. NT doctrine says in different places that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

I know that practice from the OT says differing things in regards to a woman. We can get into the whole impurity thing (ie a man shouldn't ever sleep with a woman during menstration, etc or he's unclean). Again, all those are OT morales, which differ from the New Testament Covenant.

[israel4ever]

Here's what I don't understand...(remember, I am a Jew (I don't follow the teachings/tenets of the New Testament))...how does it hurt "Joe Fundamentalist" if two gay men or two gay women get married?

 

If "Joe Fundamentalist" believes that gay couples will "burn in Hell" because their "homosexual union" is a sin against G-d, what does "Joe Fundamentalist" care?

[cwsox]

OT doctrine has more or less been replaced by NT doctrine. NT doctrine says in different places that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

My good friend Kap, I respectfully disagree that OT doctrine is replaced by NT doctrine. To begin with, the word doctrine is very problamatic to me, for it suggests to me a human codification of one particular interpretation as being "the" doctrine. Secondly, I will theologically discourse at length about nothing in the Christian Covenant (ie NT) replacing anything in the Prime (First) Covenant (ie OT) and no one wants we discoursing at length!. That becomes a matter of interpretation that is at once of total theological import to believers and at the same time totally tendatious and boring to almost everyone, filled with nuance that deserves respectful conversation in community, not cyber chat. And in the end, it is most certainly a matter which the Church has debated and differed on since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (Common Era) and will not be decided here - it is a matter in interpretation not essential to faith.

 

That is a long way of saying people of good conscience will differ on that and it doesn't matter.

 

On the second sentence, I would suggest that if one were to try and makie a living on the Chrisdtian Covenant (NT) defining marriage as between one man and one woman, one would starve to death. Christians in different eras have certainly differed on that. Indeed, in this very day, the African Anglican bishops who are most outraged at the thought of the Episocopal Church in the US consecrating a gay bishop are equally outraged if you tell them that pologamy and resort to prostitutes is wrong on Biblical (NT) grounds. Our interpretations of what "the Bible says" are far more culturally determined than Biblically or theologically determined. Those bishops would not agree with your statement at all.

 

I embrace as my brother in Christ; the differing insights we all have reflect the intellectual and theological vigor of the life of the Church and God spare us from any perceived canonical interpretation that limits such vigor. One of Luther's greatest works was titled "The Freedom of the Christian" and we ought celebrate that!

 

I think I have posted before that I have done gay and lesbian weddings. That should shock no one and outrage the usual others. I ask the same of them as I ask of anyone: a commitment to life long fidelity and faithfulness before I will ask God's blessings on the union of these two particular people.

 

I4E, in answer to your question, I have no idea on the one hand; on the other hand, I suggest that some people who think they have "truth" think they have the enforce their 'truth" on everyone. God spare us from religious people who impose "truths." Faith and one's beliefs ought be a response to the call of one's God recognising that there are variety of understandings and they are all from God for we are all unique and made in divine image reflect a different aspect of God; it is in the diversity we find the unity of God (the origins of the Christian concept of the Trinity). The imposition of a religious "truth" that others must adhere to because some believe it - that is always a danger sign and a threat to the free expression of faith and life, or, equally, the right to have no faith, as it seems best to any one person, and yet live with stigma.

 

And having said all this, I must repent for having posted in this thread and extending this thread's life.

[Reddy]

my two cents: Everyone wants to be happy in life, why stand in the way of people's happiness when it doesnt hurt you AT ALL?

[kapkomet]

I4E asked a question and I answered it. Most "fundamentalists" raise heck about this because of the issues I stated. MY personal opinion is I would never condemn those that choose it, because I am not their judge. I don't agree with it, that's my moral compass. But to each his own...

 

cw, I was generalizing when I said OT vs NT and referred to them as covenants. I was in error when I said one "replaces" the other, no, that's not totally true, but supercedes might be a better word.

 

Otherwise, we would still be sacrificing animals at alters and all that, if OT rituals were to be practiced in modern times. There are other examples, but again, I was generalizing. Thank you, though, for pointing out what I said. And one other point. DOCTRINE is indeed a TERRIBLE word in that example. Doctrines are all man interpreted, as you are indeed correct in pointing out. My choice of words in that whole post was not good!! But you got what I was trying to say...

[israel4ever]

I appreciate the intelligent, well thought out answers to my question...I am impressed with your knowledge on this topic.

 

I am still botherred by those people who refuse to "live and let live"...if I choose to do (or not do) something that has NO effect on anyone elses life, why should anyone else care?

 

Such is the dilemma of a "pro-choicer".

[Texsox]

if I choose to do (or not do) something that has NO effect on anyone elses life, why should anyone else care?

Using this example, many Fundementalists believe it does affect them by erroding the morality this country was built on. They do not want to see gay marriage announcements in the newspaper and TV. They do not want their kids exposed to that sort of stuff.

 

All of the so called victimless crimes and other areas that we would say are STFU types of things, others believe impact them.

 

I can not understand that view. Very few people I know hang their marriage license on their wall for everyone to see, so I do not see what difference it makes. But others do. Somewhere in all the debate, is what makes America strong. SOmetimes I cannot find it, but I know it is there.

[kapkomet]

I appreciate the intelligent, well thought out answers to my question...I am impressed with your knowledge on this topic.

 

I am still botherred by those people who refuse to "live and let live"...if I choose to do (or not do) something that has NO effect on anyone elses life, why should anyone else care?

 

Such is the dilemma of a "pro-choicer".

Putting aside "doctrine" and "denominations" in Christianity, the one basic premise of Christianity is to seek and save the lost. We are commanded as Christians to do so.

 

If I go seek folks to tell them of Christianity (the belief that Jesus was/is the savior), I might meet some folks who's beliefs are totally different then mine on many issues, gay marriage, living together outside of marriage, etc etc etc. That is where I think true Christians have a say in what goes on around them. Now, if they are true Christians, they will have agape love toward those folks who are living in what is described as sin. That's how I view myself. I do care for these people, but I would never, ever think any less of them (or I try, very very hard, but I'm only human). It's because I care that I would say to them that I feel what they are doing is wrong, however, we as Chrisitans should say our piece and move on and not meddle in their lives. We, as humans, will not change people. God will, if you are true to your faith. If you plant the seed, God does the work should those people be willing to open themselves up to it. But, most importantaly, it's not up to us, and I think that's where Christians tend to get it wrong, they overstep their bounds based on "religion", and meddle in lives, which is NOT what we are supposed to do.

 

Do you see now why I feel like it's my business to care, yet NOT my business to condemn, or judge? Therein lies the difference.

[Wong & Owens]

Using this example, many Fundementalists believe it does affect them by erroding the morality this country was built on.

I hate that stupid argument.

 

The country was also built on slavery, a lack of rights for women, racism, attempted genocide(Indians), and quite a bit of debauchery.

 

Any moron who thinks there was such a higher level of morality in the 1770's should get their heads out of 6th grade history books and wake the f*** up.

[israel4ever]

Putting aside "doctrine" and "denominations" in Christianity, the one basic premise of Christianity is to seek and save the lost.  We are commanded as Christians to do so.

 

If I go seek folks to tell them of Christianity (the belief that Jesus was/is the savior), I might meet some folks who's beliefs are totally different then mine on many issues, gay marriage, living together outside of marriage, etc etc etc.  That is where I think true Christians have a say in what goes on around them.  Now, if they are true Christians, they will have agape love toward those folks who are living in what is described as sin.  That's how I view myself.  I do care for these people, but I would never, ever think any less of them (or I try, very very hard, but I'm only human).  It's because I care that I would say to them that I feel what they are doing is wrong, however, we as Chrisitans should say our piece and move on and not meddle in their lives.  We, as humans, will not change people.  God will, if you are true to your faith.  If you plant the seed, God does the work should those people be willing to open themselves up to it.  But, most importantaly, it's not up to us, and I think that's where Christians tend to get it wrong, they overstep their bounds based on "religion", and meddle in lives, which is NOT what we are supposed to do.

 

Do you see now why I feel like it's my business to care, yet NOT my business to condemn, or judge?  Therein lies the difference.

But, if it is (was) G-d's will that I be Christian, wouldn't I have been born Christian?

[kapkomet]

No, because that's why God gave us free will. We are supposed to choose the "right way". If we choose to turn away from God, we will pay the consequences.

 

Here's where I will get the arguement that God's will is nothing but a "country club of so-called believers."

 

There's an interesting way of breaking all this out, using one of the most famous bible versus, John 3:16. I won't go into extreme detail, but it goes something like this.

 

For God so loved the world...

 

God was there first. We are the world. He loves us, but we are separated from God by sin.

 

that he gave...

 

Remember, God was there at the beginning. He gave us, the world, his son. He couldn't give until the other elements were in place.

 

his son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

God's son is the bridge back to God - so that we may have everlasting life.

 

That's the oversimplifaction, and there are elements starting with God and working our way through.

 

Bottom line of all this is, again, we have to make the choice, we are not born into Christianity, we have to choose it. And that's where the whole free-will thing comes into play. God loves us all, but some of us don't love back, and that's our choice.

 

(Waiting for cw to poke holes in all this... )