PDA

View Full Version : Laura Bush for "Gay Marriage" and "Pro-Choice" as she premotes her book


Pages : [1] 2

MattTR
19-05-10, 00:36
Well I ran across this a couple of days ago. Laura Bush speaks and explains her views on Gay Marriage and her ideals of Pro-Choice, for example, Roe vs. Wade, as she promotes her book, "Spoken from the Heart".

HtNabdDx_mU

It's might be an advertising perk, but I respect and admire her for standing up for her beliefs and even admitting she disagrees with her husband in two different areas.

Another interesting note, Laura Bush was raised as a Democrat. :eek:

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 00:42
i have a new respect for her.

cindy mccain, john mccain's wife posed for the noh8 ad

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Cindy-McCain-NoH8-300x300.jpg

MattTR
19-05-10, 00:44
I never lost any respect for her, she had to stand by her husband during his reign, but now that he's out of office sne can be more open about her own personal viewpoints. :)

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 00:48
I don't think she should've been quiet at all. The first lady doesn't speak for her husband. Look at Carla Brusomething Sarkoszy

Draco
19-05-10, 00:52
The role of the First Lady is traditionally to be the model 'good wife'. Which of course is a silly concept, but some traditions haven't been broken yet.

Catapharact
19-05-10, 00:59
The role of the First Lady is traditionally to be the model 'good wife'.

Rosalynn Smith Carter disagrees.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 01:01
Rosalynn Smith Carter disagrees.

as does lady bird johnson, jackie kennedy, betty ford, michelle obama, imelda marcos :vlol:

Tombraiderx08
19-05-10, 01:15
Way to Go Laura :D
Why is it that presidential people are never cool until after their out of office :/?

EmeraldFields
19-05-10, 01:23
I saw this a couple days ago and was quite pleased! :D

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 01:24
I saw this a couple days ago and was quite pleased! :D

you're doing it wrong mister-sister.

it's "i saw this a couple days ago and was quiet pleased...HoooOOooo :D"

Legends
19-05-10, 01:29
Seems like an affective way to draw attention to her book. I bet she doesn't even mention it in the book.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 01:35
Seems like an affective way to draw attention to her book. I bet she doesn't even mention it in the book.

or even really believe it. If she were really so "pro-marriage/choice" then she would've said something before now

CiaKonwerski
19-05-10, 01:36
I admire her for this. This shows that even though you may be a Repbulican or a Conservative you can still be pro gay marriage etc. I do not understand why most if not all gay people believe that Republicans and conservatives do not care. I am very much Conservative but I do not care if gay marriage happens or not. If does that is great, if not, then it would not effect me any. But once again, I am glad to see her speaking up and giving her views on this issue.

Legends
19-05-10, 01:48
She's like the worst republican ever. (Although, except from Sarah Palin. She's just stupid.) It's like being a vegetarian eating meat and then justifying it because she didn't kill the animals. Oh, now that makes sense. It's funny how it's fround upon people being against gay marriage, but what really get's you popular is accepting it.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 01:51
She's like the worst republican ever. (Although, except from Sarah Palin. She's just stupid.) It's like being a vegetarian eating meat and then justifying it because she didn't kill the animals. Oh, now that makes sense. It's funny how it's fround upon people being against gay marriage, but what really get's you popular is accepting it.

Not to mention people buying your book. where are the chapters about Bush's coke problem? the pretzel choking incident? The gossip about other first ladies?

EmeraldFields
19-05-10, 01:52
you're doing it wrong mister-sister.

it's "i saw this a couple days ago and was quiet pleased...HoooOOooo :D"

I always say it after each sentence, but I get tired of typing it out. http://i47.************/2mxrcqb.jpg

LaraLuvrrr
19-05-10, 02:55
i have a new respect for her.

cindy mccain, john mccain's wife posed for the noh8 ad

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Cindy-McCain-NoH8-300x300.jpg

I dont get this. Why are their mouths taped?

IceColdLaraCroft
19-05-10, 02:58
I dont get this. Why are their mouths taped?

it's symbolic. Prop8 was voted on in California to repeal the gay marriage laws.

Basically it's like saying "we wont be silent"

Catapharact
19-05-10, 03:05
Here is the thing about Proposition 8. It wasn't against Gay Unions... It was against the idea of the word Marriage being used to define that Union. If people were to push for more inclusive rights in legalized unions (including Homosexual ones) you can sure bet that it will have little opposition to it.

BTW: I find it odd that the media decided not to report crimes committed against those who supported Proposition 8.

Tommy123
19-05-10, 03:59
yay Laura! Glad she finally speaking her mind now shes out of office

MattTR
21-05-10, 20:33
it's symbolic. Prop8 was voted on in California to repeal the gay marriage laws.

Basically it's like saying "we wont be silent"

Ahh! I remember that, wasn't it a few weeks ago? Too bad I didn't take part. :(

Beans-Bot
21-05-10, 20:47
^^^The Day of Silence? Yes; I took part for the first time this year. :D

But on topic, this really does nothing for me in regards to how I think of the two ladies. Until they pursue legal action towards gay rights, nobody can be sure that they're both not "supporting" the movement just for publicity. But maybe the media storm around Laura's statements will encourage the Obama administration to actually do something already. :)

Capt. Murphy
21-05-10, 21:51
Talk about opposites attract. :vlol:

Even though I didn't read through any of the other replies; I'm sure this has already been said. :pi:

Gregori
21-05-10, 21:54
Here is the thing about Proposition 8. It wasn't against Gay Unions... It was against the idea of the word Marriage being used to define that Union. If people were to push for more inclusive rights in legalized unions (including Homosexual ones) you can sure bet that it will have little opposition to it.

BTW: I find it odd that the media decided not to report crimes committed against those who supported Proposition 8.

Its really childish that they're opposed to that union being called marriage :)

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 21:58
Its really childish that they're opposed to that union being called marriage :)Hardly.

Talk about opposites attract. :vlol:

Even though I didn't read through any of the other replies; I'm sure this has already been said. :pi:I don't think anyone has said that actually. :p

One thing that hasn't really been commented on at all is the "pro-choice" part of the article. Funny that.

TippingWater
21-05-10, 22:04
Go ex-miss first lady :tmb: It's Mister Pac Man's B-day ! :p
I am really happy to see pro-gay marriage people voice their opinion .

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:04
Hardly.


Actually, its beyond childish. A "civil union" is a marriage for all intents and purposes. Its merely given another name so that people don't have to fear gay people having the same rights everybody else.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:12
Actually, its beyond childish. A "civil union" is a marriage for all intents and purposes. Its merely given another name so that people don't have to fear gay people having the same rights everybody else.It's childish because some people view marriage differently to you?

Capt. Murphy
21-05-10, 22:14
I don't think anyone has said that actually. :p

It was just so obvious though. :o

One thing that hasn't really been commented on at all is the "pro-choice" part of the article. Funny that.


Yeah, funny. Not that most people here will have to worry about having (biological) kids anyway.

heh... I'm one to talk. :whi:

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:16
It's childish because some people view marriage differently to you?

Its childish, because they want a different word for what is essentially the same thing.... just so it looks like Gay people don't have the same rights as Heterosexuals.

If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... its a duck

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:18
Its childish, because they want a different word for what is essentially the same thing.... just so it looks like Gay people don't have the same rights as Heterosexuals.Or perhaps they view marriage as something that should be exclusively between a man and a woman. Just because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint doesn't make it childish.

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:24
Or perhaps they view marriage as something that should be exclusively between a man and a woman. Just because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint doesn't make it childish.

Why should it be exclusively between a man and a woman? Is there a law of physics that says man and man, women and women can't marry?

Its merely to exclude people. Its just a way of saying gay people shouldn't have the same rights in relationships as everybody else, that their sexuality should discriminate against them, that they are somehow lesser people than everybody else...

Calling it marriage, when a "Civil Union" is the exact same thing is REALLY REALLY childish. If you can't see through that, god love you.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:28
Why should it be exclusively between a man and a woman? Is there a law of physics that says man and man, women and women can't marry?

Its merely to exclude people. Its just a way of saying gay people shouldn't have the same rights in relationships as everybody else, that their sexuality should discriminate against them, that they are somehow lesser people than everybody else...

Calling it marriage, when a "Civil Union" is the exact same thing is REALLY REALLY childish. If you can't see through that, god love you.I never said that was what I thought. I haven't given my opinion on this at all. All I was saying is that's how some people see it. They have their own reasons, stop with the generalizing.

Again, learn to accept that other people might not see something the way you do.

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:31
I never said that was what I thought. I haven't given my opinion on this at all. All I was saying is that's how some people see it. They have their own reasons, stop with the generalizing.

Again, learn to accept that other people might not see something the way you do.

Other people think of every childish reason under the sun to discriminate against gay people. They won't even allow their unions to be treated equally to marriage.

Archetype
21-05-10, 22:33
Other people think of every childish reason under the sun to discriminate against gay people. They won't even allow their unions to be treated equally to marriage.

Would imagine because most religions (hate that word) consider marriage to be between a man and a woman, so there's going to be conflict over such a thing regardless.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:33
Other people think of every childish reason under the sun to discriminate against gay people. They won't even allow their unions to be treated equally to marriage.You know there's more than just one reason for people who consider marriage just between a man and a woman. However, it seems as if you're dead set on believing every single one of those people hate gays.

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:35
You know there's more than just one reason for people who consider marriage just between a man and a woman. However, it seems as if you're dead set on believing every single one of those people hate gays.


List some rational reasons why marriage has to be between a man and a woman!!

As far as I am concerned, there is no law of physics forbidding gay couples to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual people.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:39
List some rational reasons why marriage has to be between a man and a woman!!

As far as I am concerned, there is no law of physics forbidding gay couples to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual people.Depends what you call rational. No doubt you will just dismiss every reason I or anyone else finds rational as merely "childish."

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:41
Depends what you call rational. No doubt you will just dismiss every reason I or anyone else finds rational as merely "childish."

Well, you must have some rational reason to defend discriminating against gay people when it comes to relationships???

Dennis's Mom
21-05-10, 22:41
or even really believe it. If she were really so "pro-marriage/choice" then she would've said something before now

She did say she was pro-choice a long time ago. I can't remember her ever saying anything about gay marriage till now, but TBH, people don't press first ladies for positions because they weren't elected to anything. And in the case of it being different than the president's, it would just provide distraction and drama. Like the country needs more of that.

Its really childish that they're opposed to that union being called marriage :)

I agree, but on the other hand, I think gay couples could have had civil unions a long time ago had they not insisted on the word "marriage". The only reason to be married is the legal and financial benefits, and "civil union" would have done the same thing.

Sure, it's a silly thing, and why should we cater to people who are being silly about a word, but you have to keep your eye on the prize. What are you really after? There's nothing in the world from declaring yourself "married" after all. What gay couples really want is the legal benefits and protections marriage provides. If civil union would have gotten that quicker, IMO it would have been the route to take.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:46
Well, you must have some rational reason to defend discriminating against gay people when it comes to relationships???By you do you mean me personally? I still haven't come out with an opinion on this yet. All I'm doing is explaining to you that some people don't view marriage as something between a man and a man or a woman and a woman like you do and that just because you don't agree with their take on it that certainly doesn't make them childish.

A common reason for viewing marriage as something exclusively between a man and a woman is religion. It all depends on the interpretation.

Capt. Murphy
21-05-10, 22:48
People talk about it being childish for them essentially hoarding a title of an established institution. Isn't just as childish to want what someone else has? If a 'Civil Union' really isn't any different than a 'Marriage' - then what's the big deal?

On the other hand.... It's like a group of kids on a playground playing a particular game that has it's own rules. But another group of kids wants to play the same game (by name only) with different rules. The ones that claim to be the rightful (authors or players) of that game don't want anyone else using that name for a game that's is being played differently. Those that observe/practice and/or believe in the traditional definition of Marriage do so based on it's foundation. Consider this. Why do people (a man and a woman) that Love each other bother with the whole ritual of a wedding?

What makes it different (Straight marriage vs Gay Marriage)? It's a matter of biblical morality/laws. And that is where the idea of Marriage came from -essentially.

I do find it a bit funny that 2 people would want to have something recognized by God, yet they both are participating in something that God expressly forbids. That's the "Holy Matrimony" aspect of it anyway.

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:51
By you do you mean me personally? I still haven't come out with an opinion on this yet. All I'm doing is explaining to you that some people don't view marriage as something between a man and a man or a woman and a woman like you do and that just because you don't agree with their take on it that certainly doesn't make them childish.

A common reason for viewing marriage as something exclusively between a man and a woman is religion. It all depends on the interpretation.

Marriage exists outside of religion now days, so that reason no longer holds water :)

Is there any law of physics that says a marriage can't be between a man and man or a woman and woman?

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:53
Marriage exists outside of religion now days, so that reason no longer holds water :)But what defines marriage? This is the thing - some people interpret it as an exclusively religious thing. It's all about a person's viewpoint and right now you're calling every one of those you don't agree with childish.

TRfan23
21-05-10, 22:54
Marriage exists outside of religion now days, so that reason no longer holds water :)

Is there any law of physics that says a marriage can't be between a man and man or a woman and woman?

No there isn't, it's all about the cultural norm. Though I like mixed cultures.

Lemmie
21-05-10, 22:54
I agree, but on the other hand, I think gay couples could have had civil unions a long time ago had they not insisted on the word "marriage". The only reason to be married is the legal and financial benefits, and "civil union" would have done the same thing.

Sure, it's a silly thing, and why should we cater to people who are being silly about a word, but you have to keep your eye on the prize. What are you really after? There's nothing in the world from declaring yourself "married" after all. What gay couples really want is the legal benefits and protections marriage provides. If civil union would have gotten that quicker, IMO it would have been the route to take.

I'm in agreement here. The need to have parity of the rights between couples in loving relationships, whatever their sexuality, is paramount.

However, the attempt to 'trademark' the word marriage by certain groups, to capture it as a Judeo-Christian standard of legitimacy (to say, implicitly, that some relationships are more equal than others) is something that I find offensive to everyone.

Of course the fight for everyone to have the same civil rights whatever their sexuality is most crucial, but for anyone to dictate what someone else's relationship is referred to - it is pretty insufferable, as far as I'm concerned.

Gregori
21-05-10, 22:57
But what defines marriage? This is the thing - some people interpret it as an exclusively religious thing. It's all about a person's viewpoint and right now you're calling every one of those you don't agree with childish.

its not an exclusively religious thing anymore. People get married in front of the state all the time. Its now a way of expressing your love and commitment to another human being, your soul mate. And with marriage comes legal entitlements and all the other customs.

There is really no rational reason in this day and age why a man and man can't marry or a woman and a woman.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 22:59
There is really no rational reason in this day and age why a man and man can't marry or a woman and a woman.In your opinion (again, I'm on the fence) but other people take a different view. Doesn't make them childish - just different.

Gregori
21-05-10, 23:01
In your opinion (again, I'm on the fence) but other people take a different view. Doesn't make them childish - just different.

Its childish. And pure discrimination.

What reason is there that man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a women? The whole thing is merely a social construct. There is certainly no physical law forbidding it...

So, Why not?

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 23:04
Its childish. And pure discrimination.

What reason is there that man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a women? The whole thing is merely a social construct. There is certainly no physical law forbidding it...

So, Why not?It's not childish. You're only calling it childish because you don't agree with it. The latter is fine but the former is annoying and quite frankly, childish.

Why do you keep asking me? I don't really have an opinion on this.

I don't know why you keep bringing the laws of physics into this because physics have nothing to do with things like marriage and civil unions. Do you even know what the laws of physics means lol?

TRfan23
21-05-10, 23:07
its not an exclusively religious thing anymore. People get married in front of the state all the time. Its now a way of expressing your love and commitment to another human being, your soul mate. And with marriage comes legal entitlements and all the other customs.

There is really no rational reason in this day and age why a man and man can't marry or a woman and a woman.

What you have to realize (and sometimes I do), is that human beings are still learning. It's only been like 2000 and estimate of 3000-4000 (if you include the Judaism traditions) years, when marriage was made between a man and a woman in the religious perspective. (Though there may have been religions that have had similar traditions before).
It takes a long time for humans to learn something to be completely accepted in society. I'm speaking of more then possibly even 5000 years.

Gregori
21-05-10, 23:12
It's not childish. You're only calling it childish because you don't agree with it. The latter is fine but the former is annoying and quite frankly, childish.

Why do you keep asking me? I don't really have an opinion on this.

I don't know why you keep bringing the laws of physics into this because physics have nothing to do with things like marriage and civil unions. Do you even know what the laws of physics means lol?


Well, I do know very well the laws of physics, and they don't forbid same sex couples from marrying each other. I'm trying to point out in a way you can understand that there is no natural law against it. Marriage is social construct. Its made up and imaginary.

Since you're defending the viewpoint of other people, you may as well furnish the argument with some logical reasons why same sex couples can't marry. So far, I can't see one reason why they can't marry and have the same rights as everybody else

What makes it childish is not me merely disagreeing with them. I'm fine with disagreeing with people. What makes it childish is the fact, that they don't want a "civil union" to be called marriage, when it is for intents and purposes a marriage. Its exactly the same thing, just using a different word. Walks like a duck talks like a ducks.... its a duck!!

And the whole purpose of not calling it the same thing is to say that relationships between same sex couples are not viewed as equal, socially.

Mad Tony
21-05-10, 23:19
Well, I do know very well the laws of physics, and they don't forbid same sex couples from marrying each other. I'm trying to point out in a way you can understand that there is no natural law against it. Marriage is social construct. Its made up and imaginary.

Since you're defending the viewpoint of other people, you may as well furnish the argument with some logical reasons why same sex couples can't marry. So far, I can't see one reason why they can't marry and have the same rights as everybody else

What makes it childish is not me merely disagreeing with them. I'm fine with disagreeing with people. What makes it childish is the fact, that they don't want a "civil union" to be called marriage, when it is for intents and purposes a marriage. Its exactly the same thing, just using a different word. Walks like a duck talks like a ducks.... its a duck!!

And the whole purpose of not calling it the same thing is to say that relationships between same sex couples are not viewed as equal, socially.Physics and natural laws have got nothing to do with this. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I'm not defending the viewpoint, I'm just defending people's right to have a viewpoint without being called childish by people like you.

larafan25
21-05-10, 23:24
Can I ask a question as I am not equiped to back up any of my opinions so I wouldn't dare bother...

When Marriage was invented, were people aware of homosexuality?

If so, was it then made very clear that it has to be a man and women? or was that just relevent but not the significance?

If someone could asnwer this I would thank them.:)

Apathetic
21-05-10, 23:25
Can I ask a question as I am not equiped to back up any of my opinions so I wouldn't dare bother...

When Marriage was invented, were people aware of homosexuality?

If so, was it then made very clear that it has to be a man and women? or was that just relevent but not the significance?

If someone could asnwer this I would thank them.:)

:tmb:

MiCkiZ88
21-05-10, 23:26
People talk about it being childish for them essentially hoarding a title of an established institution. Isn't just as childish to want what someone else has? If a 'Civil Union' really isn't any different than a 'Marriage' - then what's the big deal?

On the other hand.... It's like a group of kids on a playground playing a particular game that has it's own rules. But another group of kids wants to play the same game (by name only) with different rules. The ones that claim to be the rightful (authors or players) of that game don't want anyone else using that name for a game that's is being played differently. Those that observe/practice and/or believe in the traditional definition of Marriage do so based on it's foundation. Consider this. Why do people (a man and a woman) that Love each other bother with the whole ritual of a wedding?

What makes it different (Straight marriage vs Gay Marriage)? It's a matter of biblical morality/laws. And that is where the idea of Marriage came from -essentially.

I do find it a bit funny that 2 people would want to have something recognized by God, yet they both are participating in something that God expressly forbids. That's the "Holy Matrimony" aspect of it anyway.
Civil union is different, and most of the time you do not get the same rights as married couples do, nor the same recognition.

It's all about how you read the bible. On one hand, gay is wrong, and on the other hand it is not deemed wrong. So you can really believe what you want. :)

Also I do find it silly when a same sex couple do believe in God, they are seen as hypocrites. You can believe in God even if you do not fully believe in everything to book says. Men have written it, and laws have changed.

larafan25
21-05-10, 23:27
:tmb:

Thanks...I guess it is a good question..:p

But I am truly wondering this.:p

To me all these civil unions/ partnerships seem like beating around the bush.

However, I love the idea of a partnership, not as a gesture of love, but just being friends and partners through life, being able to tackle what life brings with a friend and be able to get some nice benefits yet without being a couple.

However I then would wonder what might happen to that partnership when one of the partners gets a lover...:p

Gregori
21-05-10, 23:30
Physics and natural laws have got nothing to do with this. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I'm not defending the viewpoint, I'm just defending people's right to have a viewpoint without being called childish by people like you.


They do. In the respect that there is nothing in the laws of physics or nature that forbids a same sex couple to marry. Marriage is purely a social construct, a contract made between people. Its imaginary and fictitious. It is no longer a purely religious ceremony as people get married in registry offices. There is literally no reason why a man and a man can't get married or a woman and a woman. Its all a fiction, a ritual. Saying that two adults don't have the same rights just because their of the same sex is pretty silly

Everybody has a right to a viewpoint, but if its childish, it deserves to be pointed out and criticized as such. Not calling civil unions "marriage" is just unbelievable childishness. They are the same thing as a marriage in all ways, except for the name. Its a total shame in society that gay people have to fight to have the same rights in their relationships as everybody else. Why not just say they are MARRIED?

What good reason is there for saying same sex couples shouldn't be allowed marry? Whats the justification for discriminating?

larafan25
21-05-10, 23:33
They do. In the respect that there is nothing in the laws of physics or nature that forbids a same sex couple to marry. Marriage is purely a social construct, a contract made between people. Its imaginary and fictitious. It is no longer a purely religious ceremony as people get married in registry offices. There is literally no reason why a man and a man can't get married or a woman and a woman. Its all a fiction, a ritual. Saying that two adults don't have the same rights just because their of the same sex is pretty silly

Everybody has a right to a viewpoint, but if its childish, it deserves to be pointed out and criticized as such. Not calling civil unions "marriage" is just unbelievable childishness. They are the same thing as a marriage in all ways, except for the name. Its a total shame in society that gay people have to fight to have the same rights in their relationships as everybody else. Why not just say they are MARRIED?

What good reason is there for saying same sex couples shouldn't be allowed marry? Whats the justification for discriminating?

I think you are right with the word childish...

I don't think it is meant to sound rude, as everyone is childish at some point in their life, they just need to mature a bit.

It's the idea of saying "No this is only a girls club, you can't come in".

I think many forms of descrimination come from some sort of childish thoughts/ feeling.

TRfan23
21-05-10, 23:41
Can I ask a question as I am not equiped to back up any of my opinions so I wouldn't dare bother...

When Marriage was invented, were people aware of homosexuality?

If so, was it then made very clear that it has to be a man and women? or was that just relevent but not the significance?

If someone could asnwer this I would thank them.:)

Lately I've been reading the bible myself, though from a website. Also from some self research, they did know about homosexuality back then. But it was forbidden in Yaweh's eyes. It wasn't due to prejudice or discrimination at all ;) It was to do with procreation, trying to get their nation to grow (Their being the Israelites) :)

So he said that any man with another man should be put to death, but the thing is there was about a load of other laws by moses (as it's all in the Old Testament) which also said for children who disobey their parents to be put to death, magicians to be put to death, if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding day then she's to be taken to her fathers house and stoned to death and the list goes on...

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

MiCkiZ88
21-05-10, 23:44
Lately I've been reading the bible myself, though from a website. Also from some self research, they did know about homosexuality back then. But it was forbidden in Yaweh's eyes. It wasn't due to prejudice or discrimination at all ;) It was to do with procreation, trying to get their nation to grow (Their being the Israelites) :)

So he said that any man with another man should be put to death, but the thing is there was about a load of other laws by moses (as it's all in the Old Testament) which also said for children who disobey their parents to be put to death, magicians to be put to death, if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding day then she's to be taken to her fathers house and stoned to death and the list goes on...

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.htmlThe difference from now to then is that we *gays* are the last to be condemned in society's eyes. :p Nevermind the rest.

Plus we are seen the most unnatural out of the rest.

larafan25
21-05-10, 23:45
Lately I've been reading the bible myself, though from a website. Also from some self research, they did know about homosexuality back then. But it was forbidden in Yaweh's eyes. It wasn't due to prejudice or discrimination at all ;) It was to do with procreation, trying to get their nation to grow (Their being the Israelites) :)

So he said that any man with another man should be put to death, but the thing is there was about a load of other laws by moses (as it's all in the Old Testament) which also said for children who disobey their parents to be put to death, magicians to be put to death, if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding day then she's to be taken to her fathers house and stoned to death and the list goes on...

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

My goodness you rock, I have been reading this too.

I first skipped ahead to the revelations but stopped because I got scared...I saw what that dragon did to the "whore" and was like
"Dammmnnn this guy ain't joking" :p.

Perhaps if the world becomes over populated people will be forcing homosexuality onto eachother...oh wait apparently that already happens :pi:.

Sooo Back then.....Seeing as all these guys married like ten thousand women, would it be accepted for one women to marry multiple men?:)

Draco
21-05-10, 23:45
Other people think of every childish reason under the sun to discriminate against gay people. They won't even allow their unions to be treated equally to marriage.

Some of us think neither should have any legal benefits.

Lemmie
21-05-10, 23:52
Can I ask a question as I am not equiped to back up any of my opinions so I wouldn't dare bother...

When Marriage was invented, were people aware of homosexuality?

If so, was it then made very clear that it has to be a man and women? or was that just relevent but not the significance?

If someone could asnwer this I would thank them.:)

I think marriage is an interesting sociological development that arises when a society gains several things (in part religious morality) but is mainly due to the increase in personal ownership property.

Human beings have children for all kinds of reasons, but one of the main ones that they have had them throughout the ages is so that they can leave them the property that they have gained in their lives; whether it be a kingdom or a piece of furniture or money (when coinage was invented). Marriage is a process by which legitimate children are produced to whom an individual (usually a man) can leave them their property. Conventional marriage (between a man and a woman) was a patriarchal system by which men can leave property to other men and women become a transferral mechanism by which property changes hands between unrelated men.

The morality of an established society reflects those that prop it up - typically, propertied classes. This is why promiscuity and adultery are seen as threats, because (at that time) they were seen to violate the established order by which property circulated among men; as a consequence these activities were and are considered immoral.

This is the typical view (I would say) of the Western conception of marriage since the Greek classical age, but it does not represent all Western societies. This is just how I think marriage between one man and one woman came about as a cultural and societal norm; I'm sure there are differing opinions.

Homosexuality is well recorded before this time, and there is evidence from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (less sure about the latter) of loving companionships between men. However, even then, as two men cannot naturally have children, this also is a de-stabilizing influence on the property issue. But throughout the ancient world and before the adoption of Christianity and Islam across Europe, Asia and Africa there were societies that actively encouraged homosexual relations between men (as long as they eventually married women - the city state of Sparta is a case in point). Lesbian relationships are less well documented.

It's difficult to pin down the exact development of conventional marriage as practised for most of history but I think what I've described is at least a contributing factor - the property/financial motive that comes to the fore in most developed societies by around the Late Bronze Age.

I would love someone to correct me though; it's not a subject I know much about and I would like to learn more. :)

TRfan23
21-05-10, 23:52
My goodness you rock, I have been reading this too.

I first skipped ahead to the revelations but stopped because I got scared...I saw what that dragon did to the "whore" and was like
"Dammmnnn this guy ain't joking" :p.

Perhaps if the world becomes over populated people will be forcing homosexuality onto eachother...oh wait apparently that already happens :pi:.

Sooo Back then.....Seeing as all these guys married like ten thousand women, would it be accepted for one women to marry multiple men?:)

No and I have a feeling it's to do with this!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn03_16.html

I recommend reading before as to why Yaweh said this to her. Though I do think it was out of order :(

The difference from now to then is that we *gays* are the last to be condemned in society's eyes. :p Nevermind the rest.

Plus we are seen the most unnatural out of the rest.

lol that's certainly true :p Also that it's only been about 40 years for when gay rights appeared...

Gregori
22-05-10, 00:02
I think you are right with the word childish...

I don't think it is meant to sound rude, as everyone is childish at some point in their life, they just need to mature a bit.

It's the idea of saying "No this is only a girls club, you can't come in".

I think many forms of descrimination come from some sort of childish thoughts/ feeling.


Exactly!!

Quasimodo
22-05-10, 00:09
Some of the arguments here are going in so many circles it's making me nauseated.

"Why discriminate against gays? It's childish."
"It's not childish, it's just a different opinion."
"Why discriminate against gays?"
"It's just a different opinion."
"Why discriminate against gays?"
"It's just a different opinion."

:hea:

Gregori
22-05-10, 00:11
Maybe my questions are not being answered but avoided :(

Capt. Murphy
22-05-10, 00:12
Civil union is different, and most of the time you do not get the same rights as married couples do, nor the same recognition.
I believe that a homosexual/lesbian "marriage" is not the same thing -since the idea of marriage is essentially a "moral" concept based out of the Bible. If Homosexuals/Lesbians do get to have "marriages" it would be in title only and not in the true essence or spirit of what it was intended for by the very concepts and principles that established it.

It's all about how you read the bible. On one hand, gay is wrong, and on the other hand it is not deemed wrong. So you can really believe what you want. :) Feel free to quote any passages, verses, etc. that say homosexuality/lesbianism is okay -- so that I may know. :rolleyes:


Also I do find it silly when a same sex couple do believe in God, they are seen as hypocrites. You can believe in God even if you do not fully believe in everything to book says. Men have written it, and laws have changed.

Actually, it is hypocritical to claim to believe in God, and yet, claim to not believe in the validity of Holy Scripture. Or, a better way to phrase that given the context... They do not heed the seriousness of God's word - therefor they do not fully believe in God and or what He is about. You know. Like the idea of God came from the Bible, yet they disregard most or part of the Bible.

It's like baking a cake but there is a small bit of poison in it. You have to eat the whole cake and you'll be poisoned, or you don't eat any of the cake at all. In other words; you have to be able to accept the whole word of God or none of it at all. If there's something in it that disagrees with you (which would be like a poison to you) then you're a hypocrite for not accepting/believing all of it.

Quasimodo
22-05-10, 00:13
Maybe my questions are not being answered but avoided :(

Because the honest answers would earn them an almighty flaming? And rightly so.

TRfan23
22-05-10, 00:15
Feel free to quote any passages, verses, etc. that say homosexuality/lesbianism is okay -- so that I may know. :rolleyes:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_saul/jonathans_feelings_for_david/1s18_01.html

http://www.thebricktestament.com/david_vs_saul/jonathan_and_david/1s20_01.html

:/

Gregori
22-05-10, 00:19
Marriage is no longer solely a religious ceremony, and people have wed infront of many differrent gods!!!

It can now be a civil contract performed in a registry office. There is no reason to bring God(s) into it, unless you want to have it in a church/temple/mosque :)

MiCkiZ88
22-05-10, 00:25
...

you do understand that there have been multiple variations of both the new and old testament, with letters and chapters left out. So you are not eating the full cake either.

Capt. Murphy
22-05-10, 00:25
http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_saul/jonathans_feelings_for_david/1s18_01.html

:/

It doesn't say nor even imply that he lay with him as he would a woman (e.g. committed a homosexual act). And anyone can Love another person and not have sensual desire for them. Love and Lust are not always equal.

TippingWater
22-05-10, 00:25
The bottom line is we are all humans (and penguins) and if we can't accept each other we should at least learn how to tolerate each other . I personally don't understand why people make such a fuss about gay marriage , if you don't like it then don't get into one . Anyway the ignorance of some of the haters amuses me as they often refer to the bible , to back up their simple/ignorant minds , but they haven't even opened it :vlol: . Bible-shmighleh , the state and church should be , not must be separated in order for humanity to progress . I don't think the holy matrimony or the name of this union is really relevant to the gay community but the rights certainly are .

MiCkiZ88
22-05-10, 00:27
It doesn't say nor even imply that he lay with him as he would a woman (e.g. committed a homosexual act). And anyone can Love another person and not have sensual desire for them. Love and Lust are not always equal.
So are you saying my relationship with my boyfriend is pure lust, and that the love for I feel for him is just an excuse to get in bed?

Sodomy was deemed in the old testament, yet many straight couples commit it themselves.

MattTR
22-05-10, 00:37
I loved how this turned into a gay marriage debate, oh well.. it's not like I didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes: :p

Gladous
22-05-10, 00:39
I loved how this turned into a gay marriage debate, oh well.. it's not like I didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes: :p

I was thinking the same thing. :p

I'm just glad that Laura Bush is doing something that she truly believes in! :tmb:

TippingWater
22-05-10, 00:39
So are you saying my relationship with my boyfriend is pure lust, and that the love for I feel for him is just an excuse to get in bed?

Sodomy was deemed in the old testament, yet many straight couples commit it themselves.

It's pointless to try to enlighten certain people . Love is love , don't ever be embarrassed by it or let anyone "put you down" .

MattTR
22-05-10, 00:40
I was thinking the same thing. :p

I'm just glad that Laura Bush is doing something that she truly believes in! :tmb:

Yes - there we go! :tmb: A comment that has to do with the original post, yay! :yah:

In actuality, I love the debate here but that really wasn't the point of the thread. :whi:

TippingWater
22-05-10, 00:42
I was thinking the same thing. :p

I'm just glad that Laura Bush is doing something that she truly believes in! :tmb:

That's because she's a closeted case :p , j/k :p , it is indeed refreshing to see people that are targeted by the media expressing their positive views upon the LGBT community , or having any views on this issue at all :tmb::hug: .

Capt. Murphy
22-05-10, 00:44
So are you saying my relationship with my boyfriend is pure lust, and that the love for I feel for him is just an excuse to get in bed?

Sodomy was deemed wrong in the old testament, yet many straight couples commit it themselves.

I believe that you truly do Love your boyfriend, just as any other heterosexual couple would have Love for each other. I don't expect you to take my word for it but there have been people that would have labeled themselves as homosexuals/lesbians, then repented of that and given up that lifestyle. They Loved God more than they did themselves and made the choice to change what they felt they were naturally.

As for your 2nd sentence. Thank you. Although I wouldn't get as specific as 'sodomy' but rather fornication. Because think of that verse in the New Testament that say the bed of a husband and wife are undefiled. That leads me to think that acts that could be classified as "sodomy" between a husband and wife are okay in the site of God. ...*shrugs* :confused:

TRfan23
22-05-10, 00:45
It doesn't say nor even imply that he lay with him as he would a woman (e.g. committed a homosexual act). And anyone can Love another person and not have sensual desire for them. Love and Lust are not always equal.

Well that's the best I can find, but hey who's to say men having sex with men is what homosexuality is all about?

Besides even Moses implied those laws about men laying with men, to be for the Israelites. He didn't specifically say it was for the Americans or the British etc? In fact it's in the Old Testament, so shouldn't it apply to the Jews not Christians? (Though ironically they accept gays better then Christians) Also what I don't get is why some extremists who are homophobic/anti gay quote the Old Testament and so happen to also be Anti-Semitic considering the Old Testament is essentially the Torah. It makes no sense to me at all.

TippingWater
22-05-10, 00:54
They Loved God more than they did themselves and made the choice to change what they felt they were naturally. I feel sorry for them , it must be such a burden to live a life based on lies :hug: . But it's their life and if they think that by refusing to be with who they are truly attracted to are going to be magically turned straight they deserve their fate . Who is to say that GOD doesn't like gays , doesn't the bible say that he made everything on earth , I mean created :p , that is if he were real , but the point is that we are only certain that we have one life , this short thrilling life filled with more bumps than smooth roads , so why must we make it even harder for us or for our "spouses" by lying who we truly are ? . I assume you are a straight man so you probably don't understand what a heavy burden it is to be gay and to fake happy by pretesting to be straight , and most of the time the truth comes out eventually , maybe later but it will certainly burst out **cough** Ted Haggard **cough** .

TRfan23
22-05-10, 01:14
Anyways to go back on topic. Sorry guys :(

Well nice of Laura to have her views on it, and great :tmb: Though apparently she kept it this late, but who knows why?

Beans-Bot
22-05-10, 02:03
My religion is based on love for everybody, I will not have it defamed from the inside out by people claiming that we should spread hate and bigotry. A very popular opinion in the church right now [and one that has been brought up in this thread] is that the anti-homosexual Hebraic laws were intended to preserve the race of the Jews, which was in its infancy at the time. Although it is still widely considered that sodomy is sinful. But simply loving someone is considered fine.

Now can we get back on topic and stop going in circles? ;)

Glašon
22-05-10, 06:16
I'm happy for her; and it made me laugh when I first head about it :p Go WASP-wife; nice to know you can stick it in George's face from time to time.

Mad Tony
22-05-10, 09:00
Marriage is purely a social constructHence why some people view it as exclusively between a man and a woman. Carry on calling people childish just because they disagree with you, but it's not exactly going to get you much credibility.

Glašon
22-05-10, 10:02
I believe that you truly do Love your boyfriend, just as any other heterosexual couple would have Love for each other. I don't expect you to take my word for it but there have been people that would have labeled themselves as homosexuals/lesbians, then repented of that and given up that lifestyle. They Loved God more than they did themselves and made the choice to change what they felt they were naturally.

You have got to be kidding me. It's not called "giving up" on that "lifestyle". Its called psychological repression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_repression), and it's sick. I'm disgusted that you've even brought the subject matter up. How dare you insinuate that it's the proper thing to do.

As for your "lifestyle" comment, you couldn't be further from the truth. Love isn't a lifestyle. You can choose to repress all desires you want, but you can't choose who you fall in love with. It's not a religion; you can't pick and choose.

Hence why some people view it as exclusively between a man and a woman. Carry on calling people childish just because they disagree with you, but it's not exactly going to get you much credibility.

Right, so if some people view it as wrong, and most people view it as right; technically it should be a given that the choice should exist and each group should be agreed to disagree with which version is correct.

ShadyCroft
22-05-10, 11:23
I believe that you truly do Love your boyfriend, just as any other heterosexual couple would have Love for each other. I don't expect you to take my word for it but there have been people that would have labeled themselves as homosexuals/lesbians, then repented of that and given up that lifestyle. They Loved God more than they did themselves and made the choice to change what they felt they were naturally.

I don't eat differently than you do, I don't go to school differently than you do, I don't shop, clean the house, get a degree, go through an interview for a job, pay bills, drive my car, visit my parents on a weekend differently than you do...

what "lifestyle" do you mean ? The only thing different in me is that I cant get sensual, compassionate and all with the opposite sex, so my relationships are kind of different.

That's not a lifestyle, and its stupid to call it that way in my opinion because what you're talking about does not represent my life, your life or life as a whole. Marriage/relationships, that's not all life is about.

Minty Mouth
22-05-10, 14:29
I don't want to derail the thread, and I don't have an opinon either way on this, but I wanted to get my thoughts in.
Well, I do know very well the laws of physics, and they don't forbid same sex couples from marrying each other. I'm trying to point out in a way you can understand that there is no natural law against it. Marriage is social construct. Its made up and imaginary.
Firstly, physics has absolutely nothing to do with this. I fail to see for what reasons you a bringing it to the discussion. Whether the exact term 'marriage' should encompass same sex unions is purely a linguistic issue.



What makes it childish is not me merely disagreeing with them. I'm fine with disagreeing with people. What makes it childish is the fact, that they don't want a "civil union" to be called marriage, when it is for intents and purposes a marriage. Its exactly the same thing, just using a different word. Walks like a duck talks like a ducks.... its a duck!!


Well, no, not really. I think theres one difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union, and it's pretty significant.


One involves two people of different genders.
One involves two people of the same gender.


As stated, this is a linguistic issue. One thing was instated (be it a purely social construct, or not) and called marriage. Now something wiith a certain degree of difference has been instated, and some people think it should have a different term. Is a door still a door if it is made out of cloth? It still serves the same purpose, to separate rooms whilst allowing access whenever one wishes, but almost everyone would be more inclined to refer to the latter as a curtain, or a drape. This alteration in terminology has many advantages, and the use of different terms means we can avoid all sorts of confusion.

Leading a homosexual lifestyle and uniting with a person of your same gender is a significant thing. There are all kinds of social issues that still plague this. If someone comes up to you and says they are married, you are most likely to assume that they mean to a person of the opposite gender. I don't think it is wrong to assume this off the bat. Are we supposed to ask everyone if they are gay upon meeting them so we don't get confused? I don't think homosexuals would appreciate that, to be honest. If, however, you meet someone and they tell you they are 'taved', or whatever term you want for gay marriage, we don't have to inadvertantly offend the person in question, or be subject to any confusion or difficulties in regards to it; just like with the door/curtain. If someone said their house has doors, so you can move in straight away without any renovation necessary, and you move in and find the house is full of curtains, you can say there is a level of confusion there. That is, of course, a very explicit example, and probably not totally apt, but it is just to show possible difficulties that can arise with terminology of things that do the same thing. Emphasis should be put on offence here, I think.

There, is this a reasonable argument? Can you agree that terminology is different to science and physics? Can you appreciate how a differnt term would avoid awkward unwanted social faux pas?

Or are these childish arguments?

Glašon
22-05-10, 14:35
Actually, Minty Mouth - I find your post rather complicated and I can't grasp what argument you're actually trying to get across... Are you opposing civil-unions and gunning for gay marriage? Or the other way around?

Also, I think you should replace "linguistic" with "legal"; because that's what the whole problem is. Marriage is a legal constitution - just as civil unions would be; which frankly I don't agree with. It should simply by marriage for gays as well; their love and commitment isn't any different then that of the love and commitment between a heterosexual couple.

Minty Mouth
22-05-10, 14:36
Actually, Minty Mouth - I find your post rather complicated and I can't grasp what argument you're actually trying to get across... Are you opposing civil-unions and gunning for gay marriage? Or the other way around?

Also, I think you should replace "linguistic" with "legal"; because that's what the whole problem is. Marriage is a legal constitution - just as civil unions would be; which frankly I don't agree with. It should simply by marriage for gays as well; their love and commitment isn't any different then that of the love and commitment between a heterosexual couple.

Neither. I said I don't have an opinion either way.

And no, Gregori was saying it was childish to want a different term for homosexual unions, not about the legalities of it.

Dennis's Mom
22-05-10, 14:36
Of course the fight for everyone to have the same civil rights whatever their sexuality is most crucial, but for anyone to dictate what someone else's relationship is referred to - it is pretty insufferable, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not insufferable. In the large scheme of things, people have suffered far, far worse. Some victories should be taken in stages. I'm not gay, but if I were, I think I would have taken the victory of civil union so I could direct my spouse's care in case of illness and inherit possessions w/o hassles and then let time take care of the rest.

Watching Milk was a real eye opener in how far we've come in just half of my life. I don't doubt final victory will happen in my lifetime.

When Marriage was invented, were people aware of homosexuality?

Lemmie posted a really good answer to this, I just wanted to pile on and say that the FAMILY was the primary social structure. Marriage was for family, it wasn't for "love". The idea of finding your soul mate and marrying them is relatively modern.

I believe that a homosexual/lesbian "marriage" is not the same thing -since the idea of marriage is essentially a "moral" concept based out of the Bible. If Homosexuals/Lesbians do get to have "marriages" it would be in title only and not in the true essence or spirit of what it was intended for by the very concepts and principles that established it.

You're misreading the Bible then. The concept of marriage was not instituted by the Bible. Please note Lemmie's and my comment above.

Marriage's primary function was procreation: having a family. The concept of family was huge, and was for centuries later. This is why women get killed for adultery. Her job was to have her husband's children, not anyone else's. This is why fortification was bad. Who was going to care for ******* children? The whole social structure is tied up in the idea of family. Life was tough. You needed a large family to survive, and you stayed subject to your family, particularly the patriarch.

In Matthew 8, a man wants to follow Jesus but he "wants to bury his father first." Jesus says no, which sounds really harsh, but the guy's father isn't dead. In the first century, any Jew would be buried in 24 hours by law. He's really saying he has to stay with his dad because his dad's in charge and he doesn't want to **** off his dad by leaving and following this itinerant preacher. This is what family meant in Biblical times. It bore very little resemblance to our modern family.

Actually, it is hypocritical to claim to believe in God, and yet, claim to not believe in the validity of Holy Scripture. Or, a better way to phrase that given the context... They do not heed the seriousness of God's word - therefor they do not fully believe in God and or what He is about. You know. Like the idea of God came from the Bible, yet they disregard most or part of the Bible.

It's like baking a cake but there is a small bit of poison in it. You have to eat the whole cake and you'll be poisoned, or you don't eat any of the cake at all. In other words; you have to be able to accept the whole word of God or none of it at all. If there's something in it that disagrees with you (which would be like a poison to you) then you're a hypocrite for not accepting/believing all of it.

So how are your burnt offerings today? Are your phylacteries in place? :confused:

The question isn't whether God speaks through the Bible, but rather is he speaking to you? It is hypocritical to say, "oh, Pentateuch doesn't apply to me except for these parts here, which I will now apply to you."

The problem is people always pick and choose what applies to them, or more realistically, what applies to other people. Everyone interprets the Bible.

As a Christian my job isn't to manage someone else's "sin". My plate is full managing my own. It's my job to love other people and tell them the Good News.

I loved how this turned into a gay marriage debate, oh well.. it's not like I didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes: :p
It's sort of our Godwin's Law, isn't it? The longer a thread goes on, the more likely it is to turn into a "gay thread".

Glašon
22-05-10, 14:41
[...]

I love this post, thanks for sharing your thoughts! :tmb:

Andyroo
22-05-10, 15:01
I love this post, thanks for sharing your thoughts! :tmb:

+1, was a good post indeed.

Lemmie
22-05-10, 15:03
It's not insufferable. In the large scheme of things, people have suffered far, far worse. Some victories should be taken in stages. I'm not gay, but if I were, I think I would have taken the victory of civil union so I could direct my spouse's care in case of illness and inherit possessions w/o hassles and then let time take care of the rest.


True, that was a bit of an overstatement. It is good that the UK has civil partnerships, and I'm pretty proud of that.

What I meant, I suppose, was that if I met the man I wanted to live with for the rest of my life, we would probably have a civil partnership but I would consider us 'married', as I understand the term - that would be my interpretation of our relationship.

In the unlikely event that I knew anyone who would contradict me and say 'You're not really married,' for whatever reason, I could imagine myself getting extremely annoyed (not something that happens often).

Quasimodo
22-05-10, 15:16
I loved how this turned into a gay marriage debate, oh well.. it's not like I didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes: :p
You include gay marriage in the title and you're surprised that the discussion would eventually come to focus on it?

Mad Tony
22-05-10, 15:28
I'm certainly not surprised abortion has gotten little to no mention in here. The topic of homosexuality almost seems as popular as Tomb Raider on here lol.

Glašon
22-05-10, 15:36
I'm certainly not surprised abortion has gotten little to no mention in here. The topic of homosexuality almost seems as popular as Tomb Raider on here lol.

Possibly because gay marriage is a more relateable topic for what seems to be a great percentage of guys on this forum.

Dennis's Mom
22-05-10, 16:30
In the unlikely event that I knew anyone who would contradict me and say 'You're not really married,' for whatever reason, I could imagine myself getting extremely annoyed (not something that happens often).

That's when you give them that little smile reserved for those who need lots of gentle understanding and say, "well, if it makes you more comfortable . . . ." and change the subject. There's no victory in arguing, and certainly no victory in getting annoyed. Don't give them that power.

ShadyCroft
22-05-10, 17:06
Dennis' Mom: Wow! I cant express how grateful I am for these posts. Thank you very much ! I'm out of further words.

Mad_Tony: As someone said, the subject of homosexuality relates to people around here more than abortion.
I don't think a pregnant woman worried about the child in her womb would actually care about Lara Croft at this moment...its much more important than being gay.
I am gay now, probably tomorrow and for the rest of my life...why should I worry about taking a few minutes to get on TRF ?
A pregnant woman has little time to dwell on TRF. She's in a situation where the clock is ticking.

and if it makes you feel any better, I'm gay and a pro-life (except in certain situations where I'm ok with giving the woman a choice to abort if something maybe wrong with baby or her health).

As for Minty's post, well, I certainly don't mind people thinking am married to the opposite sex if they asked if I was married and I said yes.
But here's a thing, when you ask me "Why don't you bring her ?"
and I reply "Him. His name's Yoda"
don't flinch like I just slapped your face. Just give me a nod of understanding. :)

Lemmie
22-05-10, 17:41
That's when you give them that little smile reserved for those who need lots of gentle understanding and say, "well, if it makes you more comfortable . . . ." and change the subject. There's no victory in arguing, and certainly no victory in getting annoyed. Don't give them that power.

That makes sense. Should I ever get married/civil partner'd I'll remember that. Thanks. :)

Buffy87
22-05-10, 18:26
I'm pro gay marriage - civil partnerships are excellent in my view. They give the majority of the legal protections that a marriage does and allow same sex couples to inherit from their partners and the like. Legally it is not a marriage I suppose but in my mind it may as well be.I would be more inclined to call my friends partner his husband if they married, rather than civil partner. Although I do know of a gay couple who prefer not to think of it as a marriage but rather as a partnership - they simply entered into the civil partnership in order to be able to inherit should anything happen to either of them. So i guess it depends really.
In general though I don't and have never seen the issue with gay marriage - how someone else lives their life doesn't affect me. Everyone deserves to be happy on their own terms not somebody else's view of "the right way to be".

As regards abortion, I'm a little bit in the middle as odd as that may sound. I took a medical law and ethics module in my final year of undergrad and part of the course was based upon the ethics and legalities of abortion. Interesting course. Ultimately, my view is that the choice should be there for women but that it shouldn't be used as a form of contraceptive which there is a danger of - my mum works at a doctor's surgery and this is apparently the truth in some cases. Once you get to the point where the baby/fetus can feel pain then that's it for me - anytime before that is fine but at the time it actually feels pain( which I think they say is 22-26 weeks?) I would be less "pro" on the issue. I know it can be argued that it might always feel pain but it is known for certain to be able to feel at that point.
Abortion is also something that a woman should have the right to choose as regards if she has been raped and doesn't want the child, if she is going to suffer seriously in her health or the baby is. I know for certain that I would not want to bring a child who would be so severely ill that there would be little to no quality of life for the child into this world. I know some women would - but I think the choice should be there.

Gregori
22-05-10, 21:59
Hence why some people view it as exclusively between a man and a woman. Carry on calling people childish just because they disagree with you, but it's not exactly going to get you much credibility.

The genders of the people in a marriage do not define marriage, they merely define who is participating in a marriage. Its the vows and the commitment to each other that make it a marriage. There is no reason why a marriage can not be between same sex couples other than society being oppressive.
There are countries in the world that do allow same sex marriage, so there is nothing that prevent the definition of marriage to be extended to allow between same sex couples.


I am not calling people childish because they disagree with me btw. I can handle disagreement. What is childish is the insistence that there has to be a sterile special word for gay people's marriages ("Civil Unions") so that heterosexual people won't complain that gay people have the same rights as them.

Its merely a silly form on segregation. Its societies way of saying gay peoples relationships are not worth the same as that of heterosexual people.



I don't want to derail the thread, and I don't have an opinon either way on this, but I wanted to get my thoughts in.
Firstly, physics has absolutely nothing to do with this. I fail to see for what reasons you a bringing it to the discussion. Whether the exact term 'marriage' should encompass same sex unions is purely a linguistic issue.

The reason for bringing it in is clear. There is no law of physic forbidding same sex marriages. They are a social construct and the rules can be changed if people want them to be changed. It could happen tomorrow. Only thing holding it back is people's will to let it be. There are already several countries that allow gay marriage.

Well, no, not really. I think there is one difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union, and it's pretty significant.


One involves two people of different genders.
One involves two people of the same gender.
The difference is merely the gender of the people involved in the marriage. Its purely a superficial difference. Everything that makes the marriage what is, like the commitment to each other, the vows, being faithful to each other is the same!!!

As stated, this is a linguistic issue. One thing was instated (be it a purely social construct, or not) and called marriage. Now something wiith a certain degree of difference has been instated, and some people think it should have a different term. Is a door still a door if it is made out of cloth? It still serves the same purpose, to separate rooms whilst allowing access whenever one wishes, but almost everyone would be more inclined to refer to the latter as a curtain, or a drape. This alteration in terminology has many advantages, and the use of different terms means we can avoid all sorts of confusion. A marriage is still a marriage regardless of the gender of the people involved. Your "door" analogy fails badly.

Leading a homosexual lifestyle and uniting with a person of your same gender is a significant thing. There are all kinds of social issues that still plague this. If someone comes up to you and says they are married, you are most likely to assume that they mean to a person of the opposite gender. I don't think it is wrong to assume this off the bat. Are we supposed to ask everyone if they are gay upon meeting them so we don't get confused? I don't think homosexuals would appreciate that, to be honest. If, however, you meet someone and they tell you they are 'taved', or whatever term you want for gay marriage, we don't have to inadvertantly offend the person in question, or be subject to any confusion or difficulties in regards to it; just like with the door/curtain. If someone said their house has doors, so you can move in straight away without any renovation necessary, and you move in and find the house is full of curtains, you can say there is a level of confusion there. That is, of course, a very explicit example, and probably not totally apt, but it is just to show possible difficulties that can arise with terminology of things that do the same thing. Emphasis should be put on offense here, I think.
The "Homosexual lifestyle" is no different to a Heterosexual lifestyle except for the fact that they have sex and relationships with people of the same gender.
The social issues are merely intolerance of society. I'm sure gay people have no problem being asked if they are married to same sex partner or not.


There, is this a reasonable argument? Can you agree that terminology is different to science and physics? Can you appreciate how a different term would avoid awkward unwanted social faux pas?

Or are these childish arguments? Terminology is different in the respect that terminology can be changed at will, but the laws of physics can't :)
I don't think there are many homosexual people who want a different term. I think they would prefer to be able to say that they are happily married, like every other human being has the right to.

Minty Mouth
22-05-10, 23:03
The reason for bringing it in is clear. There is no law of physic forbidding same sex marriages. They are a social construct and the rules can be changed if people want them to be changed. It could happen tomorrow. Only thing holding it back is people's will to let it be. There are already several countries that allow gay marriage.
The difference is merely the gender of the people involved in the marriage. Its purely a superficial difference. Everything that makes the marriage what is, like the commitment to each other, the vows, being faithful to each other is the same!!!
But why!? This is still completely irrelevant. There is no law of physics that condones same sex marriages, either. There is no law of physics that says bananas can't get married, for God's sake!


A marriage is still a marriage regardless of the gender of the people involved. Your "door" analogy fails badly.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that by simply re-stating your opinion it magically gains more credibility. If you do not elaborate and switch up your argument with issues that are relevant I can not entertain any variety of discussion with you.

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 23:20
The reason for bringing it in is clear. There is no law of physic forbidding same sex marriages. They are a social construct and the rules can be changed if people want them to be changed. It could happen tomorrow. Only thing holding it back is people's will to let it be. There are already several countries that allow gay marriage.


Where the hell do the laws of physics come into forbidding marriages?

!Lara Croft!
22-05-10, 23:26
My opinion is that gays shouldnt be able to get married, rather be partners. Marrage is reserved for men-woman couples. Also gays should NOT have children. Become a foster parent for a troubled child sure, adopt yes. But have a cirgit (i think its called that) and an artifical insemination is wrong and its unnatural, even for straight couples, if the wife is unable to have a child then adopt, there are too many unwanted children.

Also with adopting and fostering the child already knows that having a mum and dad is normal rather than two mums or two dads. A child shouldnt be raised with the idea that homosexuality is the normal thing because its not. The normal thing is for a man and a woman to have a child and continue the species.

Today homosexuality is accepted, which is good...homosexuals shouldnt be bullied or shunned, but it shouldnt be shoved in your face either.

There are gay pride parades, but no straight pride parades...

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 23:28
My opinion is that gays should be able to get married but NOT have children. Become a foster parent for a troubled child sure, adopt yes. But have a cirgit (i think its called that) and an artifical insemination is wrong and its unnatural, even for straight couples, if the wife is unable to have a child then adopt, there are too many unwanted children.


But there's a problem. Not every parent wants a child that isn't their own in some way.

Quasimodo
22-05-10, 23:28
My opinion is that gays should be able to get married but NOT have children. Become a foster parent for a troubled child sure, adopt yes. But have a cirgit (i think its called that) and an artifical insemination is wrong and its unnatural, even for straight couples, if the wife is unable to have a child then adopt, there are too many unwanted children.

By that logic, we shouldn't have organ transplants either.

Mad Tony
22-05-10, 23:29
The laws of physics also do not forbid murder either. Obviously gay marriage and murder are two completely different things, but I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous you look Gregori when you bring the laws of physics into a debate on gay marriage.

!Lara Croft!
22-05-10, 23:31
But there's a problem. Not every parent wants a child that isn't their own in some way.

Then dont have children. If you cant natrually make children (male-male, female-female, barren women, menopausal women) then your next choice is to adopt. IF you dont wish to adopt then dont have children.

@Quasimodo: Im against organ transplants too, if your organs stop working then you die, its natural. Taking someone elses isnt right. However im not against stemcell resarch to grow new organs in your body as thats your own body growing them.

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 23:32
Im against organ transplants too.

Care to give any reasons why?

!Lara Croft!
22-05-10, 23:35
/\ /\ I edited my post.

TippingWater
22-05-10, 23:38
My opinion is that gays should be able to get married but NOT have children. What the hell ? Did anyone prohibited you from reproducing ? I wonder if you would be denied the right to have kids , how would you feel . What is it to you if a gay couple wants biologic children ?

Become a foster parent for a troubled child sure, adopt yes. But have a cirgit (i think its called that) and an artifical insemination is wrong and its unnatural, even for straight couples, if the wife is unable to have a child then adopt, there are too many unwanted children. If you are so good with giving directions , why don't you be a good Samaritan and adopt also I really don't think you have any right to judge people's choices .

Also with adopting and fostering the child already knows that having a mum and dad is normal rather than two mums or two dads. A child shouldnt be raised with the idea that homosexuality is the normal thing because its not. The normal thing is for a man and a woman to have a child and continue the species. In the first place homosexuality is not a choice , and it's just as normal to gay people to be gay as it is to straight people to be straight . Ok ?

Today homosexuality is accepted, which is good...homosexuals shouldnt be bullied or shunned, but it shouldnt be shoved in your face either. I actually agree with you , I think everyone , no matter their sexuality should , unleash their passion in the privacy and comfort of their home .

There are gay pride parades, but no straight pride parades... That's because heterosexuality was never discriminated against .

lara c. fan
22-05-10, 23:38
Then dont have children. If you cant natrually make children (male-male, female-female) then your next choice is to adopt. IF you dont wish to adopt then dont have children.

@Quasimodo: Im against organ transplants too, if your organs stop working then you die, its natural. However im not against stemcell resarch to grow new organs in your body.

So, basically...
"Hi, do you want kids, but can't have them naturally? Yes? That's great! Have you tried adoption? You don't want to? Well, you can't have kids, sorry."
Seems fairly harsh, no?

But wouldn't that stem cell research be classed as unnatural for you?

AmericanAssassin
22-05-10, 23:41
I don't see a single issue with surrogate mothers. If that was the only way I could have children with my blood and I had the money, I would do it.

TippingWater
22-05-10, 23:41
Care to give any reasons why?

Let me guess , he's a Christian . . .

Apathetic
22-05-10, 23:44
Then dont have children. If you cant natrually make children (male-male, female-female, barren women, menopausal women) then your next choice is to adopt. IF you dont wish to adopt then dont have children.

@Quasimodo: Im against organ transplants too, if your organs stop working then you die, its natural. Taking someone elses isnt right. However im not against stemcell resarch to grow new organs in your body as thats your own body growing them.

It's unrealistic to oppose something just because it's not "natural".
Sorry, but that's just dumb. :rolleyes: I think if you were in need of an organ you wouldn't be so ungrateful.

TRfan23
22-05-10, 23:45
Let me guess , he's a Christian . . .

So am I actually, but it doesn't mean you have to follow the rules, that the church give to you...

Mad Tony
22-05-10, 23:45
Let me guess , he's a Christian . . .So what if he is? As far as I know it's only Jehovah's Witnesses who are against organ transplants but that's besides the point. I don't agree with him by the way, just saying.

MiCkiZ88
22-05-10, 23:48
Let me guess , he's a Christian . . .
I'm Christian too, yet gay. Meaning a big frigging hypocrite. :D

TippingWater
22-05-10, 23:52
So what if he is? As far as I know it's only Jehovah's Witnesses who are against organ transplants but that's besides the point. I don't agree with him by the way, just saying. I guess you don't agree with him , not with me , right ? :confused: I understand that people can be against gays , nothing new under the sun , but I don't really understand how can anyone be against organ transplants , against saving lives :mad: .

I'm Christian too, yet gay. Meaning a big frigging hypocrite. :D Pretty much :p .

Gregori
22-05-10, 23:53
But why!? This is still completely irrelevant. There is no law of physics that condones same sex marriages, either. There is no law of physics that says bananas can't get married, for God's sake!
There is simply no reason why same sex couples should not be allowed other than society is oppressive and doesn't think they should have the same rights as everybody else. Its only the law of man that forbids it, not the laws of nature. Bananas can't consent to marriage but two adults certainly can.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that by simply re-stating your opinion it magically gains more credibility. If you do not elaborate and switch up your argument with issues that are relevant I can not entertain any variety of discussion with you. No one has managed to answer my questions properly, merely evade them.

!Lara Croft!
22-05-10, 23:54
What the hell ? Did anyone prohibited you from reproducing ? I wonder if you would be denied the right to have kids , how would you feel . What is it to you if a gay couple wants biologic children ?

For one i am gay. This lifestyle will prevent me from having biological children. But if i so choose i would adopt.

If you are so good with giving directions , why don't you be a good Samaritan and adopt also I really don't think you have any right to judge people's choices .

Im 14, im a bit young to adopt dont you think?

In the first place homosexuality is not a choice , and it's just as normal to gay people to be gay as it is to straight people to be straight . Ok ?

It is true that people are gay, like myself, are either born gay or become gay. Doesnt alter the fact that the normal cycle is for a man and a woman to have a child.

That's because heterosexuality was never discriminated against .

So? They arnt discriminated against now. Doesnt mean that straight people shouldnt have a parade if the gays get one.

So, basically...
"Hi, do you want kids, but can't have them naturally? Yes? That's great! Have you tried adoption? You don't want to? Well, you can't have kids, sorry."
Seems fairly harsh, no?

But wouldn't that stem cell research be classed as unnatural for you?

Maybe harsh but its right. 20 years ago that was the choice. Alot more orphans found homes then.

Thats where the controversy about stem cells comes into my mind. On one side it gives your body the power to grow itself new body parts, making them your own, natrual organs. The other is that the initial cells are foreign.

Let me guess , he's a Christian . . .

Im not christian. I dont actually have a religion. I like the elves in the eragon books.

It's unrealistic to oppose something just because it's not "natural".
Sorry, but that's just dumb. :rolleyes: I think if you were in need of an organ you wouldn't be so ungrateful.

Dont call my opinion dumb. Its my own point of view on a topic. If my heart were to fail then it would be something i had done to cause it, making it my own fault. If its a disease then im just unlucky. However when stemcell research i would be able to grow myself a new, natural heart.

Dennis's Mom
22-05-10, 23:54
It's not ridiculous. In a way, it emphasizes that marriage is a completely social construct. Marriage has already undergone huge changes from its initial function.

No longer is marriage viewed (at least in the West) as a way to further a family's interests or fortunes. Now it's an emotional commitment. No longer is it seen as a "forever" deal. Divorce is quite common, divorcees are no longer relegated to the balcony at church (if allowed in at all), and remarriage is quite common. It's not unusual for couples to choose to remain childless, something no one would have chosen a hundred years ago (had there been a choice). Marriage is more than simply the first step to family.

There's no physical reason that marriage cannot morph again to include same sex couples.

Gregori
22-05-10, 23:56
It's not ridiculous. In a way, it emphasizes that marriage is a completely social construct. Marriage has already undergone huge changes from its initial function.

No longer is marriage viewed (at least in the West) as a way to further a family's interests or fortunes. Now it's an emotional commitment. No longer is it seen as a "forever" deal. Divorce is quite common, divorcees are no longer relegated to the balcony at church (if allowed in at all), and remarriage is quite common. It's not unusual for couples to choose to remain childless, something no one would have chosen a hundred years ago (had there been a choice). Marriage is more than simply the first step to family.

There's no physical reason that marriage cannot morph again to include same sex couples.

You're exactly right


The laws of physics also do not forbid murder either. Obviously gay marriage and murder are two completely different things, but I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous you look Gregori when you bring the laws of physics into a debate on gay marriage.

That's correct, they don't forbid murder. But laws of man and laws of nature are two different things!! Laws of man are imaginary so they can be changed to suit any situation.

In several countries, same sex marriage is legal, so there is no reason why it cannot be recognized elsewhere. The only difference is the gender of the participants, not the nature of what it is, the commitment, the vows, the faithfulness.

The only reason for not applying this ritual to same sex couples is pure discrimination and intolerance.

Apathetic
22-05-10, 23:56
For one i am gay. This lifestyle will prevent me from having biological children. But if i so choose i would adopt.



Im 14, im a bit young to adopt dont you think?



It is true that people are gay, like myself, are either born gay or become gay. Doesnt alter the fact that the normal cycle is for a man and a woman to have a child.



So? They arnt discriminated against now. Doesnt mean that straight people shouldnt have a parade if the gays get one.



Maybe harsh but its right. 100 years ago that was the choice.

Thats where the controversy about stem cells comes into my mind. On one side it gives your body the power to grow itself new body parts, making them your own, natrual organs. The other is that the initial cells are foreign.



Im not christian. I dont actually have a religion. I like the elves in the eragon books.



Dont call my opinion dumb. Its my own point of view on a topic. If my heart were to fail then it would be something i had done to cause it, making it my own fault. If its a disease then im just unlucky. However when stemcell research i would be able to grow myself a new, natural heart.

I can say whatever I want to about your opinion, and yeah, it is pretty dumb. How can you even say that?

!Lara Croft!
22-05-10, 23:58
You can contradict it if you want, debate it and analyse it. But not say its just dumb.

I can say that because it is what i believe.

TippingWater
23-05-10, 00:00
For one i am gay. This lifestyle will prevent me from having biological children. But if i so choose i would adopt.



Im 14, im a bit young to adopt dont you think?



It is true that people are gay, like myself, are either born gay or become gay. Doesnt alter the fact that the normal cycle is for a man and a woman to have a child.



So? They arnt discriminated against now. Doesnt mean that straight people shouldnt have a parade if the gays get one.



Maybe harsh but its right. 20 years ago that was the choice. Alot more orphans found homes then.

Thats where the controversy about stem cells comes into my mind. On one side it gives your body the power to grow itself new body parts, making them your own, natrual organs. The other is that the initial cells are foreign.



Im not christian. I dont actually have a religion. I like the elves in the eragon books.



Dont call my opinion dumb. Its my own point of view on a topic. If my heart were to fail then it would be something i had done to cause it, making it my own fault. If its a disease then im just unlucky. However when stemcell research i would be able to grow myself a new, natural heart.You are really contradicting yourself , and I am too tired to debate this any further . I hope you will mature as you grow older :):hug:
BTW : I love you signature :):vlol:
Twilight - A girl's choice between Bestiality and Necrophilia.

Apathetic
23-05-10, 00:00
You are really contradicting yourself , and I am too tired to debate this any further . I hope you will mature as you grow older :):hug:

I know, right? :p

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:01
Here is my beef with all of this; IMO both parties in question are being childish on the matter but most of all, I am seriously disappointed by the North American LGBT community's take on the matter. IMO there are bigger things to worry about right now then re-defining the word "marriage;" especially if the prospects of civil unions can be changed to include more rights.

They can bicker away all they want for all I care... I (being a straight Muslim male) is willing to be socially responsible and is focusing on trying to reverse idiotic laws abroad that condems people to death for just being gay.

!Lara Croft!
23-05-10, 00:01
I dont see any contradictions...

TippingWater
23-05-10, 00:07
Here is my beef with all of this; IMO both parties in question are being childish on the matter but most of all, I am seriously disapppinted by the North American LGBT community's take on the matter. IMO there are bigger things to worry about right now then re-defining the word "marriage;" especially if the prospects of civil unions can be changed to include more rights. Well almost everyone wants at some point , to have more from a relationship and for that they need stability and marriage in way enforces that stability , by the rights that otherwise the people in "question" wouldn't have .

They can bicker away all they want for all I care... I (being a straight Muslim male) is willing to be socially responsible and is focusing on trying to reverse idiotic laws abroad that condems people to death for just being gay.
:tmb:

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:09
Here is my beef with all of this; IMO both parties in question are being childish on the matter but most of all, I am seriously disapppinted by the North American LGBT community's take on the matter. IMO there are bigger things to worry about right now then re-defining the word "marriage;" especially if the prospects of civil unions can be changed to include more rights.

They can bicker away all they want for all I care... I (being a straight Muslim male) is willing to be socially responsible and is focusing on trying to reverse idiotic laws abroad that condems people to death for just being gay.

Why can't gay people have the same rights in a relationship as straight people?

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:09
Y
The only reason for not applying this ritual to same sex couples is pure discrimination and intolerance.

Far, far from it. If anything it is the proof of tolerance of homosexuality. We can't just go around accepting everything and not rejecting to it, because then we are either indifferent or excercising a weak will -- neither of which means tolerance.

Don't mislabel objection as intolerance.

Mad Tony
23-05-10, 00:13
That's correct, they don't forbid murder. But laws of man and laws of nature are two different things!! Laws of man are imaginary so they can be changed to suit any situation.

In several countries, same sex marriage is legal, so there is no reason why it cannot be recognized elsewhere. The only difference is the gender of the participants, not the nature of what it is, the commitment, the vows, the faithfulness.

The only reason for not applying this ritual to same sex couples is pure discrimination and intolerance.In my opinion there are valid reasons for and against gay marriage. However, you using the laws of physics (things like gravity and energy) to try to justify gay marriage is ridiculous, not to mention puzzling. If somebody said they disagreed with gay marriage because the laws of physics didn't condone it you'd laugh at them, and rightly so.

!Lara Croft!
23-05-10, 00:13
Why can't gay people have the same rights in a relationship as straight people?

They can.

They have the same right to have children.

Only they cant produce any naturally just like if a man marries a woman who is barren or menopausal. So your next choice for child rearing is to adopt. If you dont wish to do that then sorry but you cant have children any other way. That is my opinion.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:13
Far, far from it. If anything it is the proof of tolerance of homosexuality. We can't just go around accepting everything and not rejecting to it, because then we are either indifferent or excercising a weak will -- neither of which means tolerance.

Don't mislabel objection as intolerance.

No. It really is just intolerance. Gay people are not allowed to express the same vows of love, commitment and faithfulness in their relationships before the law. They are not allowed the same legal rights as straight couples.

In more tolerant countries, they evolved the law and same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

In my opinion there are valid reasons for and against gay marriage. However, you using the laws of physics (things like gravity and energy) to try to justify gay marriage is ridiculous, not to mention puzzling. You still don't get it. The point is, there is nothing in physics forbidding two men or women to marry. its not against nature. The only thing that forbids it are the laws of man. We can change those easily. We can make up any laws we want!!

So, tell me again, what are the good reasons against gay marriage? Why should gay couples have the same rights as straight couples?

TippingWater
23-05-10, 00:16
No. It really is just intolerance. Gay people are not allowed to express the same vows of love, commitment and faithfulness in their relationships before the law. They are not allowed the same legal rights as straight couples.

In more tolerant countries, they evolved the law and same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples.


No evolution
Sometimes it depresses me
The same old same
We keep repeating history
The institution curses curiosity
It's our conviction
Sex is not the enemy

A revolution
Is the solution
A revolution
Is the solution

I don't feel guilty
No matter what they're telling me
I won't feel dirty and buy into their misery
I won't be shamed cause I believe that love is free
It fuels the heart and sex is not my enemy

A revolution
Is the solution
A revolution
Is the solution

True love is like gold
There's not enough to go around
But then there's god and doesn't god love everyone?
Give me a choice
Give me a chance to turn the key and find my voice
Sex is not the enemy

A revolution
Is the solution
A revolution
Is the solution
Sex is not the enemy
A revolution :hug:

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:16
Why can't gay people have the same rights in a relationship as straight people?


But you ARE being given that right! The word marriage is soley a ceremonial word that the Church/Mosque/Synagogue is reserving for its own beliefs on the matter. I thought that there was a clear seperation of church and state on matters such as these. If we do want to accept that divide then you can't force changes on institutional words or ceremonies that religious communities don't want to see changed.

You have to ALLOW them to change it on their own... Or else you can sure bet that the change in question will only further create the septum of intolerence.

If you are legally being given all the required rights as a "married" couple (just not being refered to as one) then I don't see the big issue with it. Heck, if it were a reversed situation and straights were a minority, I personally wouldn't mind my union being refered to as a "union." There isn't a law that prevents me from calling my "union" whatever the heck I want ;).

Mad Tony
23-05-10, 00:17
No. It really is just intolerance. Gay people are not allowed to express the same vows of love, commitment and faithfulness in their relationships before the law. They are not allowed the same legal rights as straight couples.

In more tolerant countries, they evolved the law and same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples.This is similar to the whole childish thing. Some people aren't intolerant towards homosexuals and advocate homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else but they just don't think it should be called marriage because their view is that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're all intolerant.

You still don't get it. The point is, there is nothing in physics forbidding two men or women to marry. its not against nature. The only thing that forbids it are the laws of man. We can change those easily. We can make up any laws we want!!

So, tell me again, what are the good reasons against gay marriage? Why should gay couples have the same rights as straight couples?And you're still not getting it that the actual laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with things like marriage.

Tell me again, why are you even asking me when I've explicitly said I don't have much of an opinion?

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:18
No. It really is just intolerance. Gay people are not allowed to express the same vows of love, commitment and faithfulness in their relationships before the law. They are not allowed the same legal rights as straight couples.

In more tolerant countries, they evolved the law and same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples.


The boldened example doesn't make them tolerant. It just means they don't disapprove of homosexuality.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 00:20
The boldened example doesn't make them tolerant. It just means they don't disapprove of homosexuality.

Which means they tolerate it. lol

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:22
Which means they tolerate it. lol

No, it doesn't. To tolerate something you obviously have to disapprove of it, otherwise you are indifferent and an indifferent individual is not a tolerant one.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:22
But you ARE being given that right! The word marriage is soley a ceremonial word that the Church/Mosque/Synagogue is reserving for its own beliefs on the matter. I thought that there was a clear seperation of church and state on matters such as these. If we do want to accept that divide then you can't force changes on institutional words or ceremonies that religious communities don't want to see changed.

You have to ALLOW them to change it on their own... Or else you can sure bet that the change in question will only further create the septum of intolerence.

If you legally being given all the required rights as a "married" couple (just not being refered to as one) then I don't see the big issue with it. Heck, if it were a reversed situation and straights were a minority, I personally wouldn't mind my union being refered to as a "union." There isn't a law that prevents me from calling my "union" whatever the heck I want ;).

People get married outside of religious ceremonies and it called marriage :)

I don't think there should be a different word for what in all intents and purposes is the same thing. Marriage is a marriage. The only reason to call it something else is to discriminate or signify that its not the same thing, that its somehow worth less.

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:24
People get married outside of religious ceremonies and it called marriage :)

I don't think there should be a different word for what in all intents and purposes is the same thing. Marriage is a marriage. The only reason to call it something else is to discriminate or signify that its not the same thing, that its somehow worth less.

But, no. Not necessarily. Someone might just hold the view that marriage means man and woman. Like a carrot means a hard orange vegetable.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:28
People get married outside of religious ceremonies and it called marriage :)

I don't think there should be a different word for what in all intents and purposes is the same thing. Marriage is a marriage. The only reason to call it something else is to discriminate or signify that its not the same thing, that its somehow worth less.

Correction: You ment to say they are being married in non-Ibrahamic religious ceremonies ;). Its still religion though; May it be Wiccan, Pagan, etc. etc. I really doubt hardcore Atheists believe in such ceremonies.

Like I said, whatever the reason maybe, it can't be disputed on legal grounds if a Union other then "marriage" gives you the same legal rights as a "married" couple. I will emphisize my previous point again; I have bigger things to worry about ATM... Like seeing to it that gay couples aren't condemned to death just for the simple act of loving each other.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:28
And you're still not getting it that the actual laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with things like marriage.

Tell me again, why are you even asking me when I've explicitly said I don't have much of an opinion?

Oh, its you that don't get it!! I've been trying to point out all along that laws of physics have nothing to do with marriage, that there is no law of nature that forbids same sex couples marrying. We can invent any laws we want.

I'd really like to hear what are the supposedly good arguments against same sex marriage??

Correction: You ment to say they are being married in non-Ibrahamic religious ceremonies ;). Its still religion though; May it be Wiccan, Pagan, etc. etc. I really doubt hardcore Atheists believe in such ceremonies.

Like I said, whatever the reason maybe, it can't be disputed on legal grounds if a Union other then "marriage" gives you the same legal rights as a "married" couple. I will emphisize my previous point again; I have bigger things to worry about ATM... Like seeing to it that gay couples aren't condemned to death just for the simple act of loving each other.
Its not religion. My sister got married in a registry office, not a church. :)

I don't think gay couples should be condemned to death, but I don't think that means they shouldn't also fight to have the right to marry too.

But, no. Not necessarily. Someone might just hold the view that marriage means man and woman. Like a carrot means a hard orange vegetable.
It can mean a man and man or a woman and a woman. We are capable of imagining such things!! And in some countries its totally legal for these marriages. What makes a marriage is not the gender of the participants, but the love, vows and commitment to each other as a couple

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 00:28
No, it doesn't. To tolerate something you obviously have to disapprove of it, otherwise you are indifferent and an indifferent individual is not a tolerant one.

Tolerate = endure. If you support or don't support a cause, you can still tolerate it. Thus, whoever said countries that have gay marriage are more tolerant is right. Tolerate does not mean embrace, love or support. Just allow and endure.

I really doubt hardcore Atheists believe in such ceremonies.


You think Atheists don't want to get married? Or get married in a church?

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:32
Tolerate = endure. If you support or don't support a cause, you can still tolerate it. Thus, whoever said countries that have gay marriage are more tolerant is right. Tolerate does not mean embrace, love or support. Just allow and endure.

You are quite simply wrong.

'Tolerate does not mean embrace, love or support.'

When did I say that? It means something very different.

To tolerate something means that of course we have to disapprove of it.

'If you support or don't support a cause, you can still tolerate it.'

No, like I said, that would make you indifferent. Accepting something and tolerating it are very different.

Mad Tony
23-05-10, 00:34
Oh, its you that don't get it!! I've been trying to point out all along that laws of physics have nothing to do with marriage, that there is no law of nature that forbids same sex couples marrying. We can invent any laws we want.Up until now you've insisted that because the laws of physics don't mention gay marriage, that must mean gay marriage is fine (note I'm not arguing for or against that here). Now all of a sudden you're admitting that they don't have anything to do with marriage. Why even bring them in the first place?

Please, just leave this whole laws of physics thing now because it's overshadowing your valid points.

I'd really like to hear what are the supposedly good arguments against same sex marriage??Tell me again, why are you even asking me when I've explicitly said I don't have much of an opinion?

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:34
You think Atheists don't want to get married? Or get married in a church?

Notice I said hardcore Atheists. Yes I do think that those who hold true to fundementalist atheist beliefs would like to distance themselves from any religious based ceremonies. I mean I would assume that in their view that dieties shouldn't have a say in their unions ;).

suli
23-05-10, 00:36
why do people feel the need to shove their relegion beliefes in everyone's else faces? relegion is something between you and your god. and it's no one's else bsuiness.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 00:37
Notice I said hardcore Atheists. Yes I do doubt that those who hold true to fundementalist atheist beliefs would like to distance themselves from any religious based ceremonies. I mean I would assume that in their view that dieties shouldn't have a say in their unions ;).

Since when is marriage strictly a religious ceremony?


To tolerate something means that of course we have to disapprove of it.

'If you support or don't support a cause, you can still tolerate it.'

No, like I said, that would make you indifferent. Accepting something and tolerating it are very different.
You are so very lost. I can't answer that. Check the dictionary, things might start to clear up.

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:38
Since when is marriage strictly a religious ceremony?

You're right, it isn't. The church kind of adopted it as it's own idea, even though marriage was around way before it was done before God.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:40
Up until now you've insisted that because the laws of physics don't mention gay marriage, that must mean gay marriage is fine (note I'm not arguing for or against that here). Now all of a sudden you're admitting that they don't have anything to do with marriage. Why even bring them in the first place?

Please, just leave this whole laws of physics thing now because it's overshadowing your valid points.
This is really insipid. Gay marriages can conceptually exist. They already do in several countries. There is no natural law against it, only the law of man.
Everything about them is the same, except for the gender of the participants.

Now please explain to me the good logical reasons against them?

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:42
This is really insipid. Gay marriages can conceptually exist. They already do in several countries. There is no natural law against it, only the law of man.

And this isn't good enough for you? I suppose the law of man is good enough when you expect your human rights to be withheld.

TRfan23
23-05-10, 00:42
Isn't it funny when some people complain about extremism over not approving on sexuality and go so far into it basing it on marriage... yet they don't realize they're being extremists themselves just on the opposite end of the stick lol.

When I read what I wrote above, the word irony came to mind ;)

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 00:44
And this isn't good enough for you? I suppose the law of man is good enough when you expect your human rights to be withheld.

But it's a law of man that HURTS the other man, which it shouldn't do.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:44
Since when is marriage strictly a religious ceremony?

The wiki defination of Marriage happens to be that of a "social union" or "legal contract" but that's a more generalized defination to include the views of all those countries that have added Gay Unions in the defination of Marriage. But in general terms, the word stems from "matrimony" which refers to a religious blessing and ceremonial union. So the fundemental defination of the word "marriage" is still a matramonial union.

How that defination is modified differs from nation to nation.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:45
And this isn't good enough for you? I suppose the law of man is good enough when you expect your human rights to be withheld.

I believe the law of man can be changed. In fact, it changes all the time and in several countries, gay marriage is legal :)

I also think you meant to say "upheld" not withheld. I don't think I want anybody withholding my rights. :D

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 00:46
But it's a law of man that HURTS the other man, which it shouldn't do.

Maybe so.

I want to say that I'm not arguing for the other team in this thread. I was just trying to route some of the less substantial arguments I read.

suli
23-05-10, 00:47
I'm gay and I dont support gay marriage. it's just pointless and people should focus and more important things...

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 00:48
I'm gay and I dont support gay marriage. it's just pointless and people should focus and more important things...

Just because you don't find it important doesn't mean other people don't. Everybody has different priorities. Personally, I find marriage to be a major issue. I think homosexual couples should be able to have everything straight couples do. I don't even think this separate but equal **** is good enough. Marriage for all, if you ask me.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 00:51
The wiki defination of Marriage happens to be that of a "social union" or "legal contract" but that's a more generalized defination to include the views of all those countries that have added Gay Unions in the defination of Marriage.
It's not because of that. Marriage was always a civil union as much as a religious one. Even fifty years ago, when there was no gay marriage, people still didn't have to get married at a church.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:52
Just because you don't find it important doesn't mean other people don't. And they're not wrong. Personally, I find marriage to be a major issue. I think homosexual couples should be able to have everything straight couples do. I don't even think this separate but equal **** is good enough. Marriage for all, if you ask me.

Then you can sure bet that there will be civil unrest on the matter. If its agreed upon that there is a fine dividing line between the state and religious institutions then the state has no right to redefine something that religious institutions hold sacred value towards. Their choice to disinclude gay unions from marriages can only be reversed if and only if there was no chance in hell that civil unions can be modified to include all the rights that a "married" couple enjoys.

Other then that, the state should butt out.

It's not because of that. Marriage was always a civil union as much as a religious one. Even fifty years ago, when there was no gay marriage, people still didn't have to get married at a church.

But there was a ceremony of sorts even if it wasn't done in a church. Legally, there is a subdivide between the terminology of marriage and this divide is legally defined as civil unions and Marriage. Those who don't wed under some sort of matrimonial ceremony have their unions refered to as "civil unions or marriages" rather then just marriage.

Gregori
23-05-10, 00:55
I'm with Chris Rock on this one, gay people deserve to be as miserable as everybody else :D<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dP_AGLI2FBM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dP_AGLI2FBM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 00:55
Gay marriage is legal in a couple US states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.). I think they should carry those laws in all states. I couldn't care less what the church has to say about it. I know that probably comes off as a little bit disrespectful to the church, but I really don't care what they think. I should also mention that I, myself, am a Christian.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 00:58
Gay marriage is legal in a couple US states. I think they should carry those laws in all states. I couldn't care less what the church has to say about it. I know that probably comes off as a little bit disrespectful to the church, but I really don't care what they think. I should also mention that I, myself, am a Christian.

How is that any different from the views of homophobic extremists and theocatic institutions calling out to end the "social practice" of homosexuality ;)? You can't have your cake and eat it as well.

suli
23-05-10, 00:59
Just because you don't find it important doesn't mean other people don't. Everybody has different priorities. Personally, I find marriage to be a major issue. I think homosexual couples should be able to have everything straight couples do. I don't even think this separate but equal **** is good enough. Marriage for all, if you ask me.

OMG I hate the word equal! so why dont you equal yourself with some mine worker in africa who lives on under one dollar a day? first lests equal the whole world together and then lets worry about "gay marriage". ugh.

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 00:59
^ O.o What the hell are you talking about???

How is that any different from homophobic extremists and theocatic institutions calling out to end the "social practice" of homosexuality ;)? You can't have your cake and eat it as well.

Social practice? I don't know much about that topic. Care to explain?

I certainly wouldn't classify homosexuality as a social practice...

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:01
But there was a ceremony of sorts even if it wasn't done in a church. Legally, there is a subdivide between the terminology of marriage and this divide is legally defined as civil unions and Marriage. Those who don't wed under some sort of matrimonial ceremony have their unions refered to as "civil unions or marriages" rather then just marriage.

I'm pretty sure people still call it marriage even if it was not performed in a church.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:02
Social practice? I don't know much about that topic. Care to explain?

I certainly wouldn't classify homosexuality as a social practice...

But they do ;), and they don't care about any "scientific backing" or legal views on the matter... Just as you are choosing to ignore the right of religious institutions to run things by their own rules (granted they aren't trampling legalities in the process.) So like I said... You can't have your cake and eat it as well.

EDIT:

I'm pretty sure people still call it marriage even if it was not performed in a church.

And that is my point! (And what I have been rambling on about.) A union can be called a union on LEGAL grounds but you can choose to call it whatever you want! Gay couples can call their unions "marriages" and its not illegal to do so! Its just a word right?

TRfan23
23-05-10, 01:04
Wait I'm confused, isn't there absolutely no difference between a Civil Partnership and marriage, but just the name? I mean all us gays would get the same benefits as a straight couple right? Is there anything we don't get?

So may I just ask, what's the problem? Sorry if this bothers anyone, for me to ask like this :o

:confused:


On a side note, I'm actually glad that some gays have opposing views to the majority of gays. Just goes to show we're more human, and don't always follow on what everybody else says :) And I respect that :tmb:

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:04
But they do ;), and they don't care about any "scientific backing" or legal views on the matter... Just as you are choosing to ignore the right of religious institutions to run things by their own rules (granted they aren't trampling legalities in the process.) So like I said... You can't have your cake and eat it as well.

What are you squawking about? What does social practice have to do with gay marriage or being gay?

EDIT: And yes, I agree, whatever you call it, id doesn't matter as long as it gives you the same rights. But some say gay "civil unions" don't give gay people the same rights. I have no idea whether that's right or wrong because I'm not so crazy about getting married myself.

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 01:04
I don't consider the definition of homosexuality to be opinion, but that's just me. When it comes to marriage, most couple I've seen get married aren't even Christian. By the religious peoples' standpoint, they shouldn't allow them atheists to marry either, but they do. It's hardly a religious union anymore.

aktrekker
23-05-10, 01:04
So how are your burnt offerings today? Are your phylacteries in place? :confused:

As a Christian you should know that doesn't apply since Jesus. No need for smart-ass replies.

The question isn't whether God speaks through the Bible, but rather is he speaking to you? It is hypocritical to say, "oh, Pentateuch doesn't apply to me except for these parts here, which I will now apply to you."

The problem is people always pick and choose what applies to them, or more realistically, what applies to other people. Everyone interprets the Bible.

Yes, people do interpret the bible. Just be sure to interpret the entire bible, in context, with the scriptural relationships intact.
You are skipping some parts yourself.

As a Christian my job isn't to manage someone else's "sin". My plate is full managing my own. It's my job to love other people and tell them the Good News.

But it is your job to bash other Christians for believing the bible?
And remember, if you see your brother sin and don't warn him, and he perishes in his sin, you will be held accountable. Or is that also not in your Christian job description?
Or do you just not consider gays, adulterers, etc to be your brothers?

Well, I do know very well the laws of physics, and they don't forbid same sex couples from marrying each other. I'm trying to point out in a way you can understand that there is no natural law against it. Marriage is social construct. Its made up and imaginary.

The laws of physics also do not permit same sex couples from marrying.
Do you now see how ridiculous this argument is?

And to settle the issue concerning the biblical perspective on gays, it is no worse than any other sin, sexual or otherwise. It's definitely no worse than sex outside of marriage, adultery, stealing, lying, murder, rape or anything else. But some Christians do place greater emphasis on it. The reason is really quite simple. It is seen as an attempt by society to try to justify a sin and force the church to accept it. With all the separation of church and state bull****, the government, and society, should not have a right to do that to the church. So it does cause some fear in the church. But it is not fear of homosexuality, it is fear of sin in general, and of that sin entering the church.
Understanding the problem might help you deal with it in a more diplomatic way, and avoid bashing Christians just for being Christians.

suli
23-05-10, 01:04
^ O.o What the hell are you talking about???


if you want equality then this should be applied on the most important things first.. first let all the children in africa and asia and the while world go to school, have food, and have a home just like their peers in europe and USA..and then give all of thier families stabple jobs and health insurances and etc...isnt these things more imprtant than "gay marriage"? whay? yeah I thought so.

when all the kids "equally" receive education and food and shelters then we can worry about less important things like gay marriage..that's the way I see it.

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 01:06
if you want equality then this should be applied on the most important things first.. first let all the children in africa and asia and the while world go to school, have food, and have a home just like their peers in europe and USA..and then give all of thier families stabple jobs and health insurances and etc...isnt these things more imprtant than "gay marriage"? whay? yeah I thought so.

Of course I think homeless people should be fed. I think people should save the rain forests. I think people should be educated. I just fail to see why it matters that I believe gays should be able to marry. We can work on it all...

suli
23-05-10, 01:08
Of course I think homeless people should be fed. I think people should save the rain forests. I think people should be educated. I just fail to see why it matters that I believe gays should be able to marry. We can work on it all...

what I meant, these are more important things...I wish that people would focus on these first.

Minty Mouth
23-05-10, 01:09
if you want equality then this should be applied on the most important things first.. first let all the children in africa and asia and the while world go to school, have food, and have a home just like their peers in europe and USA..and then give all of thier families stabple jobs and health insurances and etc...isnt these things more imprtant than "gay marriage"? whay? yeah I thought so.

Or, on the contrary, why don't we start work on the issues that are actually within our grasp? Rather than the problems which can not be solved nearly as quickly or simply.

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 01:10
As a Christian you should know that doesn't apply since Jesus. No need for smart-ass replies.

All the citations I've seen people use to show the Bible is against homosexuality have come from the old testament, so does that mean they don't apply either? I think that was her point, that none of it applies anymore so people shouldn't use those rules to judge others.

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 01:10
Or, on the contrary, why don't we start work on the issues that are actually within our grasp? Rather than the problems which can not be solved nearly as quickly or simply.

Makes sense. It would make it easier to focus on the big issues if we got the smaller issues out of the way first...

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:12
The problem is: sin is not real. It was invented by people so they could punish what they didn't understand or didn't accept at a certain time; the stuff they couldn't identify with.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:13
What are you squawking about? What does social practice have to do with gay marriage or being gay?

Seems like people have been cutting themselves an extra slice of cluelessness these days.

I am demonstrating how you can't trample on a religious institution's right to "safeguard" anything they consider sacred and don't want changed and then turn yourself into a hypocrite by saying that you are doing it to create a more tolerable society (since its quite clear that the divide between church and state says that state can't butt into the church's business grated that state laws aren't being violated.)

To break that rule justified any resistence that exists towards including gay unions in the word "marriage." Like I said if roles were reversed and the church suddenly decidedthat the idea of homosexiual relationships should be defined as social practice should be enacted as law wouldn't exactly go well with many ;).

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 01:14
The problem is: sin is not real. It was invented by people so they could punish what they didn't understand or didn't accept at a certain time; the stuff they couldn't identify with.

It depends how you define sin. I've always thought of a sin as something that harms other people or yourself.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:15
@Cat: Who's talking about church? I doubt many gay people would even want to get married at a church, which brings the whole argument down. Church can continue to marry only men with women and gov't can marry all people.

@Ward Dragon: I'm talking about sin as in :"You'll burn in hell!"

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 01:16
It depends how you define sin. I've always thought of a sin as something that harms other people or yourself.

I agree with this. :tmb:

Who's talking about church? I doubt many gay people would even want to get married at a church, which brings the whole argument down. Church can continue to marry only men with women and gov't can marry all people.

...But some gay people are Christians and do want to get married in a church. ;)

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:16
Who's talking about church? I doubt many gay people would even want to get married at a church, which brings the whole argument down. Church can continue to marry only men with women and gov't can marry all people.

*Sigh* Please please PLEASE read my previous posts regarding the difference between "Marriage" and "civil unions" and then we will talk again. Right now, I am just getting the "cluelessness" vibe from you.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:19
*Sigh* Please please PLEASE read my previous posts regarding the difference between "Marriage" and "civil unions" and then we will talk again. Right now, I am just getting the "cluelessness" vibe from you.But I will never see those two as different. Never. Church does not have more power than state so that only their union can be called marriage. Civil union is not an old term, it's rather new. Marriage is marriage, civil union is a gay marriage, not any marriage not performed at a church.

I agree with this. :tmb:

...But some gay people are Christians and do want to get married in a church. ;)
Gay Christians...I find that so very contradictory. How can you accept something that denies you and who you are? Religious? Spiritual? I can get it. But Christian? Nope.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 01:22
Seems like people have been cutting themselves an extra slice of cluelessness these days.

I am demonstrating how you can't trample on a religious institution's right to "safeguard" anything they consider sacred and don't want changed and then turn yourself into a hypocrite by saying that you are doing it to create a more tolerable society (since its quite clear that the divide between church and state says that state can't butt into the church's business grated that state laws aren't being violated.)

To break that rule justified any resistence that exists towards including gay unions in the word "marriage." Like I said if roles were reversed and the church suddenly decidedthat the idea of homosexiual relationships should be defined as social practice should be enacted as law wouldn't exactly go well with many ;).
That doesn't make any sense.

AmericanAssassin
23-05-10, 01:24
Gay Christians... I find that so very contradictory. How can you accept something that denies you and who you are? Religious? Spiritual? I can get it. But Christian? Nope.

What is Christianity to you? To me, it's the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of us all. It has nothing to do with who marries and loves who. That's a detail of the bible, sure. However, there's a hell of a lot more that people don't follow than just sexuality. The bible also doesn't condone divorce, yet divorce rate are higher than ever. Second marriages? The bible doesn't condone those either. Yet people do it and it's accepted. I don't see why gay marriage can't be the same. In a Christian church, to top it off.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:24
But I will never see those two as different. Never. Church does not have more power than state so that only their union can be called marriage. Civil union is not an old term, it's rather new. Marriage is marriage, civil union is a gay marriage, not any marriage not performed at a church.

And extremist nutjobs and homophobes will never accept homosexuality as a biological phenomenon and will never consider it "natural" :wve:. Either way both you and them will never reach a compromise and the rift will always be there (coupled with violent actions on both sides.)

The church may not have the right to govern state policies but the state has no right to trample on the beliefs of religious institutions when its quite clear that civil unions can be made more inclusive. Legally the state has NO RIGHT (I repeat NO RIGHT) to re-define religious beliefs.

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 01:27
Gay Christians...I find that so very contradictory. How can you accept something that denies you and who you are? Religious? Spiritual? I can get it. But Christian? Nope.

Maybe their interpretation of Christianity does not prohibit homosexuality. I've heard of some churches that perform gay marriages for example.

That doesn't make any sense.

He's saying that if the Church suddenly decided gay marriages were okay and then tried to get the state to pass that as a law it would be met with resistance since the Church isn't allowed to write laws. So, why do people expect the government to be allowed to interfere with religious ceremonies by saying how or when those ceremonies can be performed? I think that's the point he's trying to make. If you can get the civil union with equal legal rights, take it and then call it a marriage anyway since you have a 1st Amendment right to do so.

Gregori
23-05-10, 01:32
The laws of physics also do not permit same sex couples from marrying.
Do you now see how ridiculous this argument is?



The laws of physics allow for humans made of atoms to come up with an imaginary social construct like marriage...... and even to allow for same sex couples to marry.
Several countries have already legalized it :)

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 01:34
And extremist nutjobs and homophobes will never accept homosexuality as a biological phenomenon and will never consider it "natural" :wve:.
Who's talking about that? I'm just saying that if a man and a woman don't want to marry in a church, it's still called marriage and it's the same as the church one. They are not in a less of a marriage if they didn't do it at a church.
Maybe their interpretation of Christianity does not prohibit homosexuality. I've heard of some churches that perform gay marriages for example.

Sure, I get it. I just dislike religions in general because I fail to see the benefits and I see all the bad things religious have brought upon people: religious wars, intolerance for another human being etc

KIKO
23-05-10, 01:37
And extremist nutjobs and homophobes will never accept homosexuality as a biological phenomenon and will never consider it "natural" :wve:. Either way both you and them will never reach a compromise and the rift will always be there (coupled with violent actions on both sides.)


This thing about natural, unnatural. Eyeglasses, computers, alchol, drugs, clothes. None of these are natural, they were made. And even though they think homosexuality is unnatural and should be banned, they're still gonna wear clothes, they're still gonna get drunk and they're still gonna post silly videos on youtube using unnatural objects called computers. And why don't they ban these stuff as well ? Because it serves them.

And how can they even talk about freedom in the middle of this, the freedom to stop gay marriage. Well freedom has a rule, you can only be free if you let others free.

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 01:37
The laws of physics allow for humans made of atoms to come up with an imaginary social construct like marriage...... and even to allow for same sex couples to marry.
Several countries have already legalized it :)

That argument cuts both ways. Many countries have not legalized it and, as you have pointed out so often, there is no set-in-stone definition so both are equally valid. For that matter, so would a definition of marriage that involves polygamy. If marriage can be redefined, then it can mean anything. I don't really think the word matters. I think the legal rights are more important so that should be the priority.

they're still gonna post silly videos on youtube using unnatural objects called computers. And why don't they ban these stuff as well ?

You spoke too soon XD

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=168637

Gregori
23-05-10, 01:40
That argument cuts both ways. Many countries have not legalized it and, as you have pointed out so often, there is no set-in-stone definition so both are equally valid. For that matter, so would a definition of marriage that involves polygamy. If marriage can be redefined, then it can mean anything. I don't really think the word matters. I think the legal rights are more important so that should be the priority.

It doesn't matter that these countries have not legalized it yet. Its the idea that marriages between same sex couples are conceptually possible :)

KIKO
23-05-10, 01:42
You spoke too soon XD

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=168637

Or a little late. So Pakistan is trying to make a deal, they're gonna let youtube blocked until gay marriage is legal in there xD Idk.:D

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 01:44
It doesn't matter that these countries have not legalized it yet. Its the idea that marriages between same sex couples are conceptually possible :)

Anything is conceptually possible. Any concept can be altered or redefined to suit any purpose. That doesn't mean that everyone will agree upon the new definition. I don't really see the point of arguing over what the word means if it's slowing down the rate at which gay couples can receive equal rights. Get the rights first, then argue over semantics later.

Or a little late. So Pakistan is trying to make a deal, they're gonna let youtube blocked until gay marriage is legal in there xD Idk.:D

Maybe XD Your post just reminded me of that other thread, so I felt compelled to point out that in some places that is happening so at least it's not too bad here if the worst thing people have to worry about is what a word means :)

aktrekker
23-05-10, 01:45
All the citations I've seen people use to show the Bible is against homosexuality have come from the old testament, so does that mean they don't apply either? I think that was her point, that none of it applies anymore so people shouldn't use those rules to judge others.

Romans 1:26-27

And the old testament does still apply. It's just not law, it's supposed to be written in your heart. God's ideal that you are striving for even if it's out of reach. You are supposed to want what the OT entails, not the letter of the law but the spirit.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 01:45
Then dont have children. If you cant natrually make children (male-male, female-female, barren women, menopausal women) then your next choice is to adopt. IF you dont wish to adopt then dont have children.

@Quasimodo: Im against organ transplants too, if your organs stop working then you die, its natural. Taking someone elses isnt right. However im not against stemcell resarch to grow new organs in your body as thats your own body growing them.

But that's not natural!

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:46
Almost forgot.


He's saying that if the Church suddenly decided gay marriages were okay and then tried to get the state to pass that as a law it would be met with resistance since the Church isn't allowed to write laws. So, why do people expect the government to be allowed to interfere with religious ceremonies by saying how or when those ceremonies can be performed? I think that's the point he's trying to make. If you can get the civil union with equal legal rights, take it and then call it a marriage anyway since you have a 1st Amendment right to do so.

Thanks WD :).

Gregori
23-05-10, 01:47
Anything is conceptually possible. Any concept can be altered or redefined to suit any purpose. That doesn't mean that everyone will agree upon the new definition. I don't really see the point of arguing over what the word means if it's slowing down the rate at which gay couples can receive equal rights. Get the rights first, then argue later over semantics.

That's exactly my point. Anything is conceptually possible. Marriage doesn't have to be exclusively between a heterosexual couple. The same rights, bond and vows can easily be extended to gay couples too!!


The sex of the people involved in the union doesn't really change the substance of what the union is about. Its a superficial detail.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 01:51
Maybe their interpretation of Christianity does not prohibit homosexuality. I've heard of some churches that perform gay marriages for example.



He's saying that if the Church suddenly decided gay marriages were okay and then tried to get the state to pass that as a law it would be met with resistance since the Church isn't allowed to write laws. So, why do people expect the government to be allowed to interfere with religious ceremonies by saying how or when those ceremonies can be performed? I think that's the point he's trying to make. If you can get the civil union with equal legal rights, take it and then call it a marriage anyway since you have a 1st Amendment right to do so.

Thanks for the interpretation! I have a couple of problems with that idea, though - one, it's already been established in this discussion that marriage isn't a solely religious institution, so why shouldn't same-sex civil unions be recognized as marriages, too? Two, that just smacks of separate but equal from back in the day with the civil rights movement.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 01:59
one, it's already been established in this discussion that marriage isn't a solely religious institution, so why shouldn't same-sex civil unions be recognized as marriages, too?

No it hasn't. I made a clear cut argument between the legally defined differences between "church based marriages" and "civil unions" that occur outside of the church. What has been extablished that you can call that union whatever you want.

Two, that just smacks of separate but equal from back in the day with the civil rights movement.

And overtime things changed when society became more tolerant of the idea and you can sure bet that the same thing will happen here as well. A very good example I can think of relating with this same issue would how black pilots were treated in the military until a seperate flight school was established for them. The black pilots in question had a chance to prove their worth and soon enough the military dropped its segrigation policy.

Every revolution needs a proper foundational base to work its way up from. If civil unions can become more legally inclusive, it might eventually lead to total acceptance of gay marriages.

aktrekker
23-05-10, 01:59
Actually, you can get married in a church and the government won't recognize it. The pastor has to be licensed by the government and fill out the necessary government forms. So government authorized marriage is different than church marriage. Church marriage came first so it has dibs on the word :p

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 02:00
Actually, you can get married in a church and the government won't recognize it. The pastor has to be licensed by the government and fill out the necessary government forms. So government authorized marriage is different than church marriage. Church marriage came first so it has dibs on the word :p
It has dibs on the word? Come on :p

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:02
Was there not marriage before the Roman Catholic Church?

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 02:03
Romans 1:26-27

And the old testament does still apply. It's just not law, it's supposed to be written in your heart. God's ideal that you are striving for even if it's out of reach. You are supposed to want what the OT entails, not the letter of the law but the spirit.

I had trouble finding the context for that passage, whether it was against homosexuality in general or adultery and orgies in particular. The passage also mentions people doing things against their nature, but if someone is gay then it is in their nature to love someone of the same gender so they would be following their nature by marrying the person they love. In any case, the passage right after that says, "Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)" so it's pretty clear that people aren't supposed to judge one another regardless.

That's exactly my point. Anything is conceptually possible. Marriage doesn't have to be exclusively between a heterosexual couple. The same rights, bond and vows can easily be extended to gay couples too!!


The sex of the people involved in the union doesn't really change the substance of what the union is about. Its a superficial detail.

I find it amusing how it's okay to change one part of the definition but not the other. Not specifically referring to you, but over a year ago I posted a thread about the government rounding up a bunch of Mormon kids without any substantial proof of abuse because they thought that the polygamous lifestyle was a "poisonous atmosphere" and I expected everyone to focus on people's rights and whether the government abused its power. Instead a lot of the same people who supported gay marriage jumped all over me about how sick and immoral polygamy is. So my question is, why can't marriage be redefined to include polygamy too? (And if you agree it should be, then I'd be curious to hear from other people who disagree about why it's okay for one but not the other)

TRfan23
23-05-10, 02:06
Romans 1:26-27

And the old testament does still apply. It's just not law, it's supposed to be written in your heart. God's ideal that you are striving for even if it's out of reach. You are supposed to want what the OT entails, not the letter of the law but the spirit.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Will_homosexuals_go_to_hell

If you scroll down there's some info on it. Obviously it may not be true, but it is quite interesting :)
Yes I know it's where anyone can write anything but it's closest I can find on the matter ;)

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 02:06
I expected everyone to focus on people's rights and whether the government abused its power. Instead a lot of the same people who supported gay marriage jumped all over me about how sick and immoral polygamy is. So my question is, why can't marriage be redefined to include polygamy too? (And if you agree it should be, then I'd be curious to hear from other people who disagree about why it's okay for one but not the other)

I think they had more trouble with the practices of those particular Mormon polygamist societies than polygamy itself.

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:08
I find it amusing how it's okay to change one part of the definition but not the other. Not specifically referring to you, but over a year ago I posted a thread about the government rounding up a bunch of Mormon kids without any substantial proof of abuse because they thought that the polygamous lifestyle was a "poisonous atmosphere" and I expected everyone to focus on people's rights and whether the government abused its power. Instead a lot of the same people who supported gay marriage jumped all over me about how sick and immoral polygamy is. So my question is, why can't marriage be redefined to include polygamy too? (And if you agree it should be, then I'd be curious to hear from other people who disagree about why it's okay for one but not the other) Oh.. I've nothing against polygamy... once its between consenting adults. Its not the kind of relationship I would like to have with my future wife but If other people want it, I'm okay with that :o

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:12
So ironic... Considering that me being an Arab/(classified) mutt considers polygamy wrong and improper and shouldn't be connected to any religious practices Lol! I will be considerate of polygamist "unions" but religiously, it has little to no meaning to me.

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 02:16
So ironic... Considering that me being an Arab/(classified) mutt considers polygamy wrong and improper and shouldn't be connected to any religious practices Lol! I will be considerate of polygamist "unions" but religiously, it has little to no meaning to me.

I don't really like the idea of polygamy either, but so far every argument that I've seen in favor of gay marriage could just as easily be applied to polygamous marriage so I'm wondering when that will happen :p I'm probably being overly analytical, but it seems like equal amounts of change to the definition to alter the gender of the people or the number of people involved.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:24
I don't really like the idea of polygamy either, but so far every argument that I've seen in favor of gay marriage could just as easily be applied to polygamous marriage so I'm wondering when that will happen :p I'm probably being overly analytical, but it seems like equal amounts of change to the definition to alter the gender of the people or the number of people involved.

It is a slippery slope and IMO its totally unfair that a religious institution should be forced to accept any changes that go against their belief system so long as they aren't harming anyone or breaking any legal statutes. So much for honouring the respectiable decision of seperating religious and civil beliefs in making landmark decisions :p.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 02:28
It is a slippery slope and IMO its totally unfair that a religious institution should be forces to accept any changes that go against their belief system so long as they aren't harming anyone or breaking any legal statutes. So much for honouring the respectiable decision of seperating religious and civil beliefs in making landmark decisions :p.

Sure, but how is calling a civil union marriage (despite the gender(s) of the couple) infringing upon the separation of church and state? Especially since, again, it's been established that marriage isn't a totally religious construct.

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:29
It is a slippery slope and IMO its totally unfair that a religious institution should be forces to accept any changes that go against their belief system so long as they aren't harming anyone or breaking any legal statutes. So much for honouring the respectiable decision of seperating religious and civil beliefs in making landmark decisions :p.

Oh, I don't think particular religions should be forced to accept a state's definition of marriage, but that outside of the religion, people should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony and have that marriage recognized by the state. :)

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:36
Sure, but how is calling a civil union marriage (despite the gender(s) of the couple) infringing upon the separation of church and state? Especially since, again, it's been established that marriage isn't a totally religious construct.

It is if the word "marriage" implies the use of matramonial ceremonies and seeing how almost any matrimonal union is religiously based in some manner (may it be paganism, wiccan, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, etc. etc.) it is an infligement on a religious denomination's right to define it which way it wants. There is a reason why Prop 8 was put to the vote and its quite clear that the vast majority of the religious community doesn't approves of the idea of re-defining the word. Well that and the greater California populus ;).

And once again (I think this is the third time I am repeating this) legally, unions that happen outside of the church are legally defined as "*insert union specifics* civil union; Not marriage.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 02:38
It is if the word "marriage" implies the use of matramonial ceremonies and seeing how almost any matrimonal union is religiously based in some manner (may it be paganism, wiccan, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, etc. etc.) it is an infligement on a religious denomination's right to define it which way it wants.

How so, unless the government is demanding that churches perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, too?

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:44
How so, unless the government is demanding that churches perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, too?

That is one of the major precieved "fallouts" the the greater religious community fears. If it becomes constitutionally acceptable for the state to re-define religiously connected practices, who is to say that the legal precedent being set here wouldn't eventually lead the state to conclude that the church shouldn't have the right to "dis-include" any services it offers since it can legally be defined as "discrimination?"

Like I said... Slippery slope ;).

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:48
That is one of the major precieved "fallouts" the the greater religious community fears. If it becomes constitutionally acceptable for the state to re-define religiously connected practices, who is to say that the legal precedent being set here wouldn't eventually lead the state to conclude that the church shouldn't have the right to "dis-include" any serives it offers since it can legally be defined as "discrimination?"

Like I said... Slippery slope ;).

Not really. Marriages for same sex couples don't have to be performed in a church if the religion doesn't agree with them. They can easily be performed in a registry office, just like atheists do. My sister got married that way :) What constitutes a religious marriage and a civil marriage are different things. The state doesn't have to alter the marriage practices of the religion.

Legend 4ever
23-05-10, 02:50
Not really. Marriages for same sex couples don't have to be performed in a church if the religion doesn't agree with them. They can easily be performed in a registry office, just like atheists do. My sister got married that way :)

My point exactly.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:50
Not really. Marriages for same sex couples don't have to be performed in a church if the religion doesn't agree with them. They can easily be performed in a registry office, just like atheists do. My sister got married that way :)


Does it legally states on her certificate that her union is "marriage" or does it states "civil" marriage?

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:52
Does it legally states on her certificate that her union is "marriage" or does it states "civil" marriage?

It haven't looked at the cert at all, but it is a legally recognised marriage. She is married:)

aktrekker
23-05-10, 02:55
In any case, the passage right after that says, "Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)" so it's pretty clear that people aren't supposed to judge one another regardless.


Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Pretty clear to me.
But I really didn't mean to start debating the matter. You said you weren't aware of a New Testament passage so I gave you one.
The single verse you quoted is taken out of context. You have to read the entire first chapter of Romans to get the context. Especially v28-32. It is speaking to people who are judging others for their sin but are committing the same sins. They are hypocrites. And instead of trying to confront people and help them get out of their sin they are beating them down.
The bible actually says Christians are held accountable if people aren't warned about their sin.

Anyway, everyone can believe what they want.
Technically the thread has gone :off:
It's supposed to be about Laura Bush and her book:ton:

Catapharact
23-05-10, 02:55
It haven't looked at the cert at all, but it is a legally recognised marriage. She is married:)

... Or you and she calls it as such ;). How do you know that the certificate doesn't clearly states that her "marriage" is a civil union and the state defines it as such? To her and you however, it maybe marriage in the subjective sense.

Gregori
23-05-10, 02:57
... Or you and she calls it as such ;). How do you know that the certificate doesn't clearly states that her "marriage" is a civil union and the state defines it as such? To her and you however, it maybe marriage in the subjective sense.

Oh no, it legally recognised over here as a marriage. There is nothing subjective about it at all.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 03:04
That is one of the major precieved "fallouts" the the greater religious community fears. If it becomes constitutionally acceptable for the state to re-define religiously connected practices, who is to say that the legal precedent being set here wouldn't eventually lead the state to conclude that the church shouldn't have the right to "dis-include" any services it offers since it can legally be defined as "discrimination?"

Like I said... Slippery slope ;).

Why would the government want to do that, though?

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 03:06
Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Pretty clear to me.

So "the natural function of the woman" is to be used for sex and making babies? A lot of these passages have been viewed differently over the years as we have expanded the definition of civil rights. People no longer support rape or slavery even though such things are mentioned in the Bible, so I don't think there's a solid basis for rejecting homosexuality based upon a few Biblical passages like that one.

But I really didn't mean to start debating the matter. You said you weren't aware of a New Testament passage so I gave you one.

That seems to be the only possible mention of homosexuality in the new testament and I think the meaning of the passage is debatable.

Edit: For clarification, I was reading this version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV) of the passage and in the whole context (from 1:18-1:32) it doesn't sound at all like it's talking about homosexuality to me. Rather it sounds like it's talking about idolatry and having religious orgies as the pagans used to do.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 03:14
Why would the government want to do that, though?

It probably doesn't intends to but legally precedent can be set and if you are aware of the concept of western Jurisprudence (codification and "divine right of kings" being the exception,) legal precedents are important factors of consideration when it comes to amendments to state and federal lsws. And if a precedent will be set upon the idea that marriage (who many view as a religious ceremony) can be re-defined upon the whims of the state, who is to say that other people (including polygamists) wouldn't want a cut of that action? And with a precedent set, its quite possible that the courts will overule the church's views on the matter.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 03:19
Is it necessarily a redefinition if a secular definition already exists?

patriots88888
23-05-10, 03:26
On a side note, I'm actually glad that some gays have opposing views to the majority of gays. Just goes to show we're more human, and don't always follow on what everybody else says :) And I respect that :tmb:

Sorry, but that might be the most ridiculous statement I've seen posted on this forum to date. Care to explain how having a difference in opinion and viewpoint makes someone more human? And to add, not all who are hetero have the same views either. You seem to be basing that statement of yours on fanatic generalizations and misconceptions. Naughty, naughty... you should know better. ;)

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 03:28
Sorry, but that might be the most ridiculous statement I've seen posted on this forum to date. Care to explain how having a difference in opinion and viewpoint makes someone more human? And to add, not all who are hetero have the same views either. You seem to be basing that statement of yours on fanatic generalizations and misconceptions. Naughty, naughty... you should know better. ;)

His point was that it breaks the stereotypes by proving that gay people don't all follow the same beliefs and agenda.

Catapharact
23-05-10, 03:28
Is it necessarily a redefinition if a secular definition already exists?

But legally its all subdivided and categorized. I have already made the argument on that case like 5 times already :p.

On a similar note:

I think that one of many things that the LGBT community should learn from the prop 8 senerio in this situation is that you need to clearly define your views on marriage/unions and present a defination that clearly defines the divide between religious marriages and "gay civil" marriages. I think one of many reasons that pushed California's populus to reject Prop 8 included the fact that the terminology presented in the bill was way too generalized.

patriots88888
23-05-10, 03:50
His point was that it breaks the stereotypes by proving that gay people don't all follow the same beliefs and agenda.

I know what his point was, but that doesn't change the ridiculousness of his statement. As I pointed out, the same can be said of any and all classifications. By stating that is what makes gays more human is what makes the statement so laughable because it suggests an heir of superiority which is non-existant. Which also I might add, is the very thing which 'minorities' are opposed to and fight so desperately against.

Unless he's referring to 'more human' as meaning that those who are not didn't consider gays as human in the first place. Which would still be a ridiculous misconception and laughable.

Quasimodo
23-05-10, 03:50
But legally its all subdivided and categorized. I have already made the argument on that case like 5 times already :p.

On a similar note:

I think that one of many things that the LGBT community should learn from the prop 8 senerio in this situation is that you need to clearly define your views on marriage/unions and present a defination that clearly defines the divide between religious marriages and "gay civil" marriages. I think one of many reasons that pushed California's populus to reject Prop 8 included the fact that the terminology presented in the bill was way too generalized.

That's a good point. I wonder if it'd still get rejected, though...

aktrekker
23-05-10, 03:54
So "the natural function of the woman" is to be used for sex and making babies? A lot of these passages have been viewed differently over the years as we have expanded the definition of civil rights. People no longer support rape or slavery even though such things are mentioned in the Bible, so I don't think there's a solid basis for rejecting homosexuality based upon a few Biblical passages like that one.

Don't forget the part "men with men" doing what they normally do with women. It just sounds like you're trying very hard to reinterpret something that's fairly obvious.
Rape was never condoned in the bible. It was only reported.
Slavery as such was not really condoned, only allowed. When the slave was another Jew, they were to be released every 7 years. Slavery in the NT was by the Romans.




That seems to be the only possible mention of homosexuality in the new testament and I think the meaning of the passage is debatable.

Edit: For clarification, I was reading this version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV) of the passage and in the whole context (from 1:18-1:32) it doesn't sound at all like it's talking about homosexuality to me. Rather it sounds like it's talking about idolatry and having religious orgies as the pagans used to do.

I don't see the meaning as debatable at all. It's pretty clear what it says.
And the first chapter is kind of a laundry list of the deplorable practices of the Romans. They were already starting their downward slide into depravity. It also mentions greed, murder, gossip, lies, slander, disobedience to parents, and more. It isn't focusing on one specific sin, it just includes it in the list.
As I said before, the bible doesn't say it's worse than any other sin. In fact other sins are mentioned more often because they were more common.

And that's enough of this topic. No use beating it to death.

Ward Dragon
23-05-10, 04:02
Don't forget the part "men with men" doing what they normally do with women.

You mean what straight men normally do with women :p If someone is straight then it probably is a sin for them to act gay since they are denying their true nature, just as it would be sinful for a gay person to pretend to be straight.

It just sounds like you're trying very hard to reinterpret something that's fairly obvious.

But it's not obvious to me. Like I said before, in the context of the entire passage it sounds to me like it's talking specifically about idolatry and religious orgies, not homosexual relationships in general.

aurora89
23-05-10, 04:40
The Bible speaks against pagan rituals (involving male and female prostitutes alike), promiscuity, rape, and paedophilia. And that's just about it. Even if it DID say something about homosexuality being wrong in and of itself, so what? That means CHRISTIANS (and possibly Jews) should abstain from homosexual relationships-- hypothetically speaking, of course. The Bible also condemns witchcraft, psychics, and the eating of pigs, lobsters, etc. Should we outlaw pork and seafood? Forbid psychics from running businesses? Stone or at least arrest adulterers? NO. Because we believe in freedom of religion. Or so people tell me. ;) Why should we impose our religious beliefs on people when it comes to marriage?

As Jesus said about homosexuality:






...

Glašon
23-05-10, 04:54
My opinion is that gays shouldnt be able to get married, rather be partners. Marrage is reserved for men-woman couples. Also gays should NOT have children. Become a foster parent for a troubled child sure, adopt yes. But have a cirgit (i think its called that) and an artifical insemination is wrong and its unnatural, even for straight couples, if the wife is unable to have a child then adopt, there are too many unwanted children.

Also with adopting and fostering the child already knows that having a mum and dad is normal rather than two mums or two dads. A child shouldnt be raised with the idea that homosexuality is the normal thing because its not. The normal thing is for a man and a woman to have a child and continue the species.

Today homosexuality is accepted, which is good...homosexuals shouldnt be bullied or shunned, but it shouldnt be shoved in your face either.

There are gay pride parades, but no straight pride parades...

Wow. Aren't Australians meant to be all free-loving and such? That was quite a shock to read actually, your views seem so -- backwards.

"Marrage is reserved for men-woman couples." You've just gone and done the single most annoying that seems to be the natural response of close-minded people, stated an opinion given to them by someone else, and then not given it any backing; no evidence what-so-ever; not even a justification of your own thoughts. WHY is marriage strictly between a man and a woman? Marriage was about having children and centred around the family; in ages past. Now, it's totally different. Not everyone decides to get married for the sake of starting a family - it's about declaring love and commitment. Love and commitment is not something solely able to be achieved between a man and a woman.

Ugh; Im just going to skid your points on adoption, because you obviously fail to realise how contradictory your views are.

"There are gay pride parades, but no straight pride parades.." Of course there aren't "straight parades". Gay parades are practically a form of rebellion - straight people have no reason to rebel - there's no social or legal issues telling them that they aren't as accepted by society because of their sexual and love interests.

It's not ridiculous. In a way, it emphasizes that marriage is a completely social construct. Marriage has already undergone huge changes from its initial function.

No longer is marriage viewed (at least in the West) as a way to further a family's interests or fortunes. Now it's an emotional commitment. No longer is it seen as a "forever" deal. Divorce is quite common, divorcees are no longer relegated to the balcony at church (if allowed in at all), and remarriage is quite common. It's not unusual for couples to choose to remain childless, something no one would have chosen a hundred years ago (had there been a choice). Marriage is more than simply the first step to family.

There's no physical reason that marriage cannot morph again to include same sex couples.

:tmb: I agree with you here as well; marriage was around long before it got caught up in the religions that survive with us today; and it has always moved with the times. Marriage has changed so many times it seems stupid that in modern times, it doesn't already include same-sex relationships.

Even in the middle-ages people were definitely using marriage for reasons other than what would be considered it's "true" purpose by the Church.

But you ARE being given that right! The word marriage is soley a ceremonial word that the Church/Mosque/Synagogue is reserving for its own beliefs on the matter. I thought that there was a clear seperation of church and state on matters such as these. If we do want to accept that divide then you can't force changes on institutional words or ceremonies that religious communities don't want to see changed.

You have to ALLOW them to change it on their own... Or else you can sure bet that the change in question will only further create the septum of intolerence.

If you are legally being given all the required rights as a "married" couple (just not being refered to as one) then I don't see the big issue with it. Heck, if it were a reversed situation and straights were a minority, I personally wouldn't mind my union being refered to as a "union." There isn't a law that prevents me from calling my "union" whatever the heck I want ;).

Marriage doesn't belong to the religious institutions! It's a legal contract between two people, declaring mutual love and commitment. Marriage wasn't invented by any of the parties you mentioned above, and it shouldn't be REGULATED by those parties either. If they don't want same-sex couples to marry, then fine, same-sex couples wont marry in their Churches. But there shouldn't be any reason stopping them from choosing some other place, gathering their friends and families and getting married before a marriage celebrant. Straight couples get married without any mention of the words "god" or "holy" all the time.

I'm gay and I dont support gay marriage. it's just pointless and people should focus and more important things...

I used to have this view as well, I simply didn't care about the issue. But now I'm starting to really see it as a "last hurdle" of acceptance.

Just because you don't find it important doesn't mean other people don't. Everybody has different priorities. Personally, I find marriage to be a major issue. I think homosexual couples should be able to have everything straight couples do. I don't even think this separate but equal **** is good enough. Marriage for all, if you ask me.

:tmb:

Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Pretty clear to me.
But I really didn't mean to start debating the matter. You said you weren't aware of a New Testament passage so I gave you one.
The single verse you quoted is taken out of context. You have to read the entire first chapter of Romans to get the context. Especially v28-32. It is speaking to people who are judging others for their sin but are committing the same sins. They are hypocrites. And instead of trying to confront people and help them get out of their sin they are beating them down.
The bible actually says Christians are held accountable if people aren't warned about their sin.


Oh pleeaaassssse. You're going to take something anti-gay from a book called "Romans"? That's the kettle calling the tea pot black.

Paddy
23-05-10, 05:05
Wow. Aren't Australians meant to be all free-loving and such? That was quite a shock to read actually, your views seem so -- backwards.


Not all Aussies think that way :p I sure as hell dont.

Glašon
23-05-10, 05:15
Not all Aussies think that way :p I sure as hell dont.

Lol, I was playing on a stereotype!

And, you're against gay marriage? Why?

Uncaring, sure. But against?

Paddy
23-05-10, 05:17
Lol, I was playing on a stereotype!
I figured as much lol.

Glašon
23-05-10, 05:19
I figured as much lol.

Whoops, I edited my post too late. Can I ask why you're against it?

Paddy
23-05-10, 05:20
Lol, I was playing on a stereotype!

And, you're against gay marriage? Why?

Uncaring, sure. But against?
Im not against it. If they wanna marry good for them. I dont think anyone should stand in their way.

Glašon
23-05-10, 05:23
Im not against it. If they wanna marry good for them. I dont think anyone should stand in their way.

Sorry :o I thought you were disagreeing with me and agreeing with !lara croft!.

aktrekker
23-05-10, 06:29
Wow. Aren't Australians meant to be all free-loving and such? That was quite a shock to read actually, your views seem so -- backwards.

"Marrage is reserved for men-woman couples." You've just gone and done the single most annoying that seems to be the natural response of close-minded people, stated an opinion given to them by someone else, and then not given it any backing; no evidence what-so-ever; not even a justification of your own thoughts. WHY is marriage strictly between a man and a woman? Marriage was about having children and centred around the family; in ages past. Now, it's totally different. Not everyone decides to get married for the sake of starting a family - it's about declaring love and commitment. Love and commitment is not something solely able to be achieved between a man and a woman.

How do you know it was given to her by someone else?
It's her opinion, she doesn't need to back it up.
Who the **** do you think you are making demands like this?


Oh pleeaaassssse. You're going to take something anti-gay from a book called "Romans"? That's the kettle calling the tea pot black.
WTF are you talking about? Reading something into it are you?
Besides it all started just giving a reference to someone else, not you. It then required an explanation to someone else, not you.

You are an extremely emotional person and are obviously unable to discuss this issue rationally and logically. Best to quit while your behind.