 
|
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/09/06 - 19:42 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | the real point of same sex 'marrage' is to make homosexuality seem more normal and acceptable - which it simply is not |
Says you. It's perfectly normal to gay men and lesbian women.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/09/06 - 20:19 Post subject:
<edit>
where's alan when you need him 
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/09/06 - 21:10 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | <edit>
where's alan when you need him |
 No offense to gman (haven't even seen him much lately), but Alan was a superb moderator for this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
coachmarkos
my boys could swim
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 11387
Location: 1st in AFC West
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/10/06 - 02:11 Post subject:
I'm not going to argue this point.
I can only speak for myself. And I can say honestly, it doesn't bother me, in the slightest.
but that's me.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 06:12 Post subject:
I have to say this much, and it's not just about this particular forum but in fora everywhere in which I hear this same dialogue: for people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality, a conversation like this is really villifying.
Personally, I think there's something wrong with the fact that people who are in effect saying, "Be tolerant of me and the way I live/the way I love" are not extending that same courtesy to the people whose opinions differ.
I think on some deep fundamental level, some people just really think it's wrong to love a person of one's same sex, and although I don't subscribe to that view, I think confusing how one should proceeed with that view in terms of legislation etc and the holding of that view is not a great place to be.
I understand the value of deconstructing a view to get to the heart of it; to find a place where there is consensus, and to go from there. A lot of good can come from that. What I'm seeing, though, doesn't look like people trying to achieve consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 09:56 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Personally, I think there's something wrong with the fact that people who are in effect saying, "Be tolerant of me and the way I live/the way I love" are not extending that same courtesy to the people whose opinions differ. |
Being in the camp that's getting the indignant finger waggled at here, I can tell you this isn't about "tolerance". This is the land of the free and people can "do" what they please, courtesy given..live, love, laugh however you please. But...of course there's a 'but', taking an institution such as marriage that is Biblically based, defined by centuries of men and women and rooted in established religions as a fundamental standard of living, when a movement in a country that's a couple hundred years old and a blip on the radar of time goes against this, it's like adding an eleventh commandment, it's like adding the book of darwin to the Bible, it's paramont to dictating as a government a "religion" that you yourself rile against in separation of church and state, to recognize gay marriage is not about being "uncomfortable", it's about holding fast to a basic Biblical tenant. If gays want to forward the idea of "civil unions" or some other structure to streamline some of these "rights" (i still don't buy a whole lot of that argument), then by all means, roll it forward, but please, don't call it "marriage", because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 10:10 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition. |
King David had 8 wives and ten concubines.
Solomon had 700 wives.
Jacob married Rachel and Leah.
can you account for this?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 10:52 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Personally, I think there's something wrong with the fact that people who are in effect saying, "Be tolerant of me and the way I live/the way I love" are not extending that same courtesy to the people whose opinions differ. |
Being in the camp that's getting the indignant finger waggled at here, I can tell you this isn't about "tolerance". This is the land of the free and people can "do" what they please, courtesy given..live, love, laugh however you please. But...of course there's a 'but', taking an institution such as marriage that is Biblically based, defined by centuries of men and women and rooted in established religions as a fundamental standard of living, when a movement in a country that's a couple hundred years old and a blip on the radar of time goes against this, it's like adding an eleventh commandment, it's like adding the book of darwin to the Bible, it's paramont to dictating as a government a "religion" that you yourself rile against in separation of church and state, to recognize gay marriage is not about being "uncomfortable", it's about holding fast to a basic Biblical tenant. If gays want to forward the idea of "civil unions" or some other structure to streamline some of these "rights" (i still don't buy a whole lot of that argument), then by all means, roll it forward, but please, don't call it "marriage", because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition. |
Not everyone in this country is married in the church, under God, following beliefs of the Bible. Is theirs still a valid marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 12:05 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition. |
King David had 8 wives and ten concubines.
Solomon had 700 wives.
Jacob married Rachel and Leah.
can you account for this? |
Every man sins. I don't believe God directed these men to marry mutiple wives. Perhaps you have a verse that proves me wrong. As evidence for us today, the heroes of the Bible are often the worst offenders of God's laws. Their repentence and journey back to God's favor are the lessons for us to understand. I wouldn't hold any of these men up as examples of marriage, but instead examples of how those decisions to follow social customs/pressures of their day led to the troubles they had and ultimately how far down they fell.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 12:19 Post subject:
[quote="camelia bedelia"] | jrjo wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Personally, I think there's something wrong with the fact that people who are in effect saying, "Be tolerant of me and the way I live/the way I love" are not extending that same courtesy to the people whose opinions differ. |
Being in the camp that's getting the indignant finger waggled at here, I can tell you this isn't about "tolerance". This is the land of the free and people can "do" what they please, courtesy given..live, love, laugh however you please. But...of course there's a 'but', taking an institution such as marriage that is Biblically based, defined by centuries of men and women and rooted in established religions as a fundamental standard of living, when a movement in a country that's a couple hundred years old and a blip on the radar of time goes against this, it's like adding an eleventh commandment, it's like adding the book of darwin to the Bible, it's paramont to dictating as a government a "religion" that you yourself rile against in separation of church and state, to recognize gay marriage is not about being "uncomfortable", it's about holding fast to a basic Biblical tenant. If gays want to forward the idea of "civil unions" or some other structure to streamline some of these "rights" (i still don't buy a whole lot of that argument), then by all means, roll it forward, but please, don't call it "marriage", because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition. |
Not everyone in this country is married in the church, under God, following beliefs of the Bible. Is theirs still a valid marriage?[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 12:24 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | Not everyone in this country is married in the church, under God, following beliefs of the Bible. |
It's all under God whether you care to admit it or not. 
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 12:31 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | Not everyone in this country is married in the church, under God, following beliefs of the Bible. |
It's all under God whether you care to admit it or not. |
And then so would be a marriage between a man and his husband, whether you care to admit it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 13:02 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: |
No offense to gman (haven't even seen him much lately), but Alan was a superb moderator for this forum. |
I just got this gig last week. Cut me some slack.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 15:11 Post subject:
just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/12/06 - 16:49 Post subject:
| copteacher wrote: | just remember it does not prohibit "gay" marriage, it defines marriage
| exact wording wrote: | SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. |
|
By defining it as the union of man and woman, you are prohibiting gay marriage. Surely it is worded to be less offensive, but it is effectively a ban.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
