Political protests are always a little more fun when the protesters are a little more fabulous. Yesterday's vote to put a gay marriage ban in North Carolina's constitution was a depressing setback, only to be followed by today's far more encouraging, long-awaited support for same-sex marriage by President Obama. The writing appears to be on the wall for opponents of marriage equality. That's a little bittersweet, since the writing on these pro-gay marriage protest signs is entertaining enough that we're definitely going to miss them when the battle is finally over nationwide.
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
-
Albert | 2 hours ago flag |
Brian,
So help me to have better knowledge, as you claim I don't have, can you answer the questions I asked?
According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages?
In regard to the bible, I didn't bring up the bible. Someone else did and I was responding to a reference they made. I have never made the bible my stance for not wanting the redefinition of the word marriage. My stance all along has been the slippery slope which you still do not seem to make the connection there. If it has begun to happen in Canada, it could happen in the USA too.
One thing that we do agree on is that we do, as a nation, need to think deeply about these issues. We can't make light of them. That is exactly why I am on here.
It's amazing how you can read my mind and know that I am not thinking for myself. These arguments are mine and they are presented here based on things I have seen, read, heard and the like. I have considered all sides and have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of the country to not allow the redefinition of the word marriage as it will open the door to be redefined over and over again and again. -
Brian | 3 hours ago flag |
@Albert, its clear that we aren't going to agree. You claim that 'marriage' should be defined the way it has been defined in the past, but you oppose the way it has been defined in the past (anti-miscegenation laws, laws allowing marriage to underage children, marriage that allows polygamy, etc.). You brought up the Bible, but then asserted that your position isn't based on the Bible when I showed you that the Bible has nothing to say against gay marriage (at least nothing any stronger than it says against Hamburger Helper). All in all, its clear that your position is poorly thought out, poorly researched, and internally inconsistent. This indicates that you've never really thought much about your position regarding gay marriage, you've just thoughtlessly accepted what you were told by someone else. I hope that you think about the issue more, even if, in the end, you decide not to agree with me, our nation needs people to dig in deeply into thinking about human rights issues, not just thoughtlessly accept what you've been told by someone else.
-
Albert | 5 hours ago flag |
Brian, I'm not going to reiterate all that I have already said. It seems we are at odds on these issues so to save time and effort on both of our parts, lets agree to disagree on these points for now, shall we?
And if you are okay with it, can I ask you a couple of question?
According to the US government, what is the purpose of marriage and what interest does the government/society gain by acknowledging marriages?
I'm asking so that I have a better understanding of your point of view, if you are okay with that? -
Brian | yesterday flag |
@Albert, honestly I can't figure out what your point is
1.) You've not proven that there's any connection between polygamy and gay marriage. Nor have you proven that, if there is, that means that gay marriage should be prevented. It used to be that marriage between a white person and a black person wasn't possible. Was it wrong to make marriage between a white and a black possible? Again, slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. They aren't legitimate arguments.
2.) Polygamy in Canada is illegal. So, what's your problem with polygamy and Canada? That some people have talked about it? The best defense of social justice is free speech. How is your position NOT a criticism of free speech? -
Albert | yesterday flag |
Brian, It seems that you missed my last comment or something because I explained in that redefining the word marriage to mean what homosexual supporters want will open the door for other groups, such as polygamists, and possibly later pedophiles, to redefine it to mean what they want it to mean.
You are missing the progression for some reason. The slippery slope is shown in Canada:
around 6 years ago, they passed equality marriages for same sex couples. Now polygamists have been to court to get equality marriages to include them. I don't know how you don't see the connection there.
If it's happening in Canada now, it's VERY possible that the same progression will happen in the US later.
I'm not trying to explain what WILL happen but what MIGHT happen. And if we use our brains and look around us we can see the evidence of it happening in other countries.
You being educated should be able to follow that connection, I would think.
It's not like I just made it up or something, I'm looking at events that have happened elsewhere and I'm applying that logic to this situation.
It seems apparent that there will never be sufficient evidence for you to want to see what I'm asserting. You have chosen to ignore current events in light of your own agenda.
And as I have said, I have seen what has been happening in the world and am just applying history to like events and extrapolating out what could possibly happen. And that scientifically speaking, shows itself to be very possible in light of what is happening in Canada right now. -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert, sure pedophiles want pedophilia 'relationships' made legal. They've wanted it long before gay marriage became a possibility. The same with polygamists. What you've not done is prove that making gay marriage legal will end up making pedophilia or polygamist marriages legal. Nor have you proven that that is a sufficient reason to be against gay marriages. For example,, we want to reduce black violence, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep blacks in chains.
-
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE, You said, "What? I can't hear you!!"
Great! Now I don't have to worry about you being so concerned about me being on my soap box. Since you can't hear me, I need not worry anymore. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Brian, "I'm still waiting for you to post a good argument against gay marriage. Your Biblical arguments show how little you know about the Bible. Your slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy."
I haven't been presenting a biblical argument. I have said that several times. So I'm not sure how little you can tell I know or don't know based on my arguments. Sure, I have said that there are things that I need to look into more, such as how some words are used or what they mean, but that doesn't mean I don't know the bible, that just means I still have some things to learn. I'm guessing you don't know everything about the bible either, right? For instance, how to carry on a conversation about the bible without using scripture references from the NIV which you have said is flawed. I would presume that you would have read the manuscripts yourself and then told us what it meant straight from the manuscripts and not relied on a flawed translation that you have been using in your arguments to other people.
As far as my slippery slope argument, how is it a logical fallacy?
Your examples before are pretty weak in explaining why a slippery slope would be a logical fallacy.
Slippery slope means that it is a downward motion. Something is done and there is a logical progression of what might happen next.
I have not just stated that it's a slippery slope, I have provided evidence that shows what has been happening in Canada with them having equality marriages for the past 6 years and then polygamists coming on the scene wanting the same thing for them. That's not a slippery slope there, that is a reality that is happening as we speak.
Because that is happening there, the logical aspect of it is that if it could happen there, then it's very possible that it can happen here.
And I mentioned about pedophilia because homosexual supporters have said that if they are their own sexual orientation, like heterosexuals, then they should be set at equal standing with heterosexuals. So the logical aspect of this is that if pedophiles get defined as their own sexual orientation, then they too will want equal standing.
So you see, I'm not just making empty claims, I'm actually backing it up with valid reasons to believe that this could happen. That is why my slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.
Just because you say a slippery slope is a logical fallacy does not make it so. You need to show WHY it's a logical fallacy.
Isn't it possible that what is happening in Canada right now(with polygamists wanting to be accepted just as the homosexual community has been accepted), could very well happen here in the US?
Isn't it possible that if pedophilia could be defined as it's own sexual orientation(the links I provided you shows that people are attempting to do this right now), that it's very possible that they might want to be on equal ground as heterosexuals and now homosexuals?
You see, these are not empty assumptions. These are taking facts that are happening right now and showing that they could very well lead to something down the road. Not in one year or two but several. Even Canada has enjoyed equality marriages for 6 years before polygamists attempted to get their day in court.
So how is this illogical? Don't just say it is, show me how it is. -
Sandstone | 05/17/2012 flag |
Albert, thank you for your thoughtful questions, although this may not be the answers you were seeking.
It is not my intention to convince or coerce others into accepting the "rightness" of my beliefs as their own. Each of us must confront for ourselves what seems genuine or truthful, although I would suggest that most "truths" have indefinite borders. This can cause conflicts, but also foster diversity. Some people prefer absolute answers to everything. Others are content with multiple shades of grey in their lives. Einstein, for example, rejected today's accepted theory of Quantum Mechanics because of it's fuzzy premise that not everything about the the structure of matter is determinable, prompting his famous remark, "God does not play dice with the universe." Well, maybe he does.
Organized religions have communities of members who hold common beliefs. Which religion is the true faith? "Just tell me what to believe!" From Adventists to Zoroastrianism they all share elements of truth as well as dogmatic tenets. Nothing's perfect, neither religions nor people. We're all a little "fuzzy." Life is messy.
Three quotes help me keep things in perspective:
Max Planck (Nobel Prize winning physicist): "All matter exists by virtue of a force. We must assume that behind this force is a conscious and intelligent mind, a mind that is the matrix of all matter."
Bertrand Russell (British philosopher): "The whole problem with the world is you've got a bunch of fools and fanatics who are so sure of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt."
Marcel Proust (French writer): "All final decisions are made in a state of mind that will not last." -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert. "I am telling you that I don't want same-sex marriage. I am telling you that it's not a smart path to go down" Then don't have one. I'm sure no one wants to have a same-sex marriage with you anyway. You're totally free to have your opinion, right up until it conflicts with someone else's rights, just like you have the right to swing your arm, but not to punch anyone in the face. I'm still waiting for you to post a good argument against gay marriage. Your Biblical arguments show how little you know about the Bible. Your slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
What? I can't hear you!!
-
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE
You said, "And considering you've been answering every freaking person here since these pictures have been posted, I'm thinking your equal time has expired!"
There is no rule or law that states we can't answer every freaking person on this thread.
You said, "I don't want to stop reading what other people have to say, I just think that what YOU have to say is moronic!!"
And you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else. And I have not in anyway tried to stop you from speaking.
You said, "You are so one sided. You won't let us be and think what we want to think."
But you're different? Are you not one sided? Have you even considered anything I have said? If not, then I would consider you one sided.
I have considered the other side. And that is why I post here. Because I see problems with what I see. And I have not seen any one suggest solutions in any form or fashion. All I get is the same thing that you post. Contradictions to how you really feel. You don't want equality, you want your agenda and that's it. At least I'm consistent with my view point. I am telling you that I don't want same-sex marriage. I am telling you that it's not a smart path to go down but you cry for equality but you don't really mean it.
you have ignored most, if not all I have said, because you choose to be apathetic to the issues.
You said, "No one is asking for your opinion and yet you feel the need to give it."
And who asked you for your opinion? Right.
You said, "Who the hell do you think you are? "
My name is Albert. I live in the US of A and I have the same rights as every other individual citizen that is legal in this country. I have the right to vote for laws I want passed and vote against laws that I don't want passed, just like every other citizen. I have freedom of speech just as every other legal citizen does. I respect your right to have these rights as well and I will fight for them if I have to. That is who I am.
Who are you? -
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA you said, you said, you said, you said... You're such a freaking idiot!!! I am treating you just like I treat all other idiots equally!!! And considering you've been answering every freaking person here since these pictures have been posted, I'm thinking your equal time has expired!
I don't want to stop reading what other people have to say, I just think that what YOU have to say is moronic!!You are so one sided. You won't let us be and think what we want to think. No one is asking for your opinion and yet you feel the need to give it. Who the hell do you think you are? -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
NMANDINE You said, "Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!! "
What happen to equality there NMANDINE? Don't we all get a voice? Shouldn't we all have equal right to say what we feel or think? Or is the only equality you are seeking is equality that fits your agenda?
You know that there is a link at the bottom of your email's that you receive that says, "To stop receiving mail from Happy Place click here.". right?
If you don't like what I have to say, please feel free to click there. But I have the same rights are you and everyone else to speak my voice. -
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!!
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Hey, Albert, GET OFF YOUR SOAP BOX AND GET A LIFE!!!
-
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Albert. "Slippery Slope" arguments are logical fallacies. You do realize that don't you? Oh, you don't? Then clearly we must not allow people to eat meat, else they'll start eating humans. Clearly, we must not teach minorities to read, else they'll put the rest of us in chains. Clearly, we must not allow children out of the house, else they'll get ran over by cars. Clearly, we must not allow gay marriage, else we'll have to allow pedophiles to marry children. Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. Now, why are you debating using logical fallacies? Its either because you didn't know that slippery slopes are logical fallacies or you didn't care. I assume its the former, so now you know.
"There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry. So love is not a good argument to use." In every single one of those examples, there is demonstrable harm. That's true whether we're talking about the "lost boys" problem of polygamy, the genetic problem with incest, etc. The one case that does not have any demonstrable harm is gay marriage.
"Heterosexual unions by nature produce the next generation." That's not true. Heterosexual unions produce babies. To produce the next generation, babies have to be raised to adulthood. There are half a million kids in the foster care system each year. That proves that our dependence on heterosexual unions is failing us. And speaking anthropologically, parents dying is not a new problem. That's how the gay gene evolved - so that the children in our family/band/tribe would be provided for instead of growing up to be a problem for our people. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
John, You said, "What did Jesus say about homosexuals...absolutely nothing"
I could say, "John, I haven't seen you say anything against pedophilia or murder so that must mean you believe it to be okay!"
See what I did there?
We can not in anyway assert that just because someone doesn't say something about a particular subject that they either accept it or deny it.
What we would have to look at other evidence to try and assess what they possibly believed.
So lets look at Jesus:
1) We know the Jesus was a Jewish male that lived according to the Torah and the Prophets.
2) We know that he kept all the precepts of what the Torah and the Prophets spoke of.
3) We know that the Torah condemned homosexuality in Leviticus if no where else. (this to remove contention)
Therefore we could actually conclude that Jesus believed the bible to be the true word of God and that he believed what was written in the Torah and the Prophets. This would indicate that he believed that homosexuality was an abomination to the Lord. And if Jesus was who He claimed to be, then it would make more sense that Jesus believed that homosexuality was actually a sin. -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Sandstone, You said, "Am I saying there is no God? Of course not."
So do you believe there is the God of the bible or a different god?
You said, "Is the earth flat, motionless, and at the center of the universe as the Bible's authors apparently would have had us believe based upon their limited knowledge of science? Should women have the status of chattel or mere slaves? Was there really a flood that covered the entire earth in five miles of water? Did Christ actually walk on water? Is homosexuality truly an abomination before God? My own sense to each of these questions, and to many other Biblical precepts, is no."
How did you come to the conclusion that the answer to all of these are no?
You said, "Others must decide for themselves what they choose to believe."
Shouldn't we all believe what is true and not just what we want to be true for ourselves?
You said, "I choose to be open to new ideas that challenge my perception of reality, "When the facts change so does the educated mind."
If these new ideas showed you that your above questions were true, would you change your mind to believe them to be true?
You said, "There are some great ideas in the Bible that everyone ought to personally consider as they form their own moral code. But I believe it should be interpreted in a modern cultural context, rather than as a set of hard and fast rules for all time."
Why is that? What is wrong with them being hard fast rules if they are true and fit even for today?
You said, "And in my view of reality, by what authority can I deny gays the same rights?"
Do you feel the same way about polygamous marriages? -
Albert | 05/17/2012 flag |
Brian
You said, "Are you attempting to assert that hetero people do not have the right to marry the people they love?"
I said nothing of the sort. If anything, I was saying that love is not a factor that the government takes into consideration. There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry. So love is not a good argument to use.
You said, "That's becoming increasingly obvious. You base your position that gays shouldn't have the right to marry, at least in part, on the Bible. Yet, you barely know the book."
Actually, I have said countless times that I'm not basing any of this on the bible. I am looking at this from a logical point of view.
It's logical to extend the fact that if one group can change the definition of a word that other groups will have the same ability to change it as well.
Same-sex supporters can not use arguments like 'equal rights', 'consenting adults', or that 'love is involved' and expect to keep polygamy from using the same arguments when they want their day in court.
You said, "Then you have no problems with the US government changing the law to include gay marriage?"
Actually, no, I do, and I would still have a problem with it if it was changed. That is why I am speaking up now, before it happens. Because, as I have said countless times, this opens the door for other groups to redefine it as they see fit. If the law can be changed to suit same-sex marriage, it can be changed again to suit polygamy and again for whatever else is next. This is my point about it being a slippery slope.
To think that it will just stop after there is same-sex marriage is to be closed minded to possible future events.
I said, "The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations."
And then you said, "Then your wrong. Creating a child is easy and takes about nine months. Raising that child can take anywhere from 18 to 24 years. A gay uncle can help raise that child without the distractions of his own children."
How am I wrong? How do two males create a child? How to two women create a child?
Heterosexual unions by nature produce the next generation. They create families that become the building blocks of civilization. These families are the most stable and advantageous environment for raising children. They pass on what have been nourished so that society is stabilized. These relationships make society possible in the first place.
Homosexual relationships are not designed to produce the next generation. They can raise children, sure, but that is the exception not the rule in those relationships. The government has no reason to support a relationship that it can't benefit from any more than to brothers, who love each other, who live in the same house.
And though a gay uncle could be very capable of raising a child, and there are many that are, this is the exception not the rule. The government has no reason to base laws on the exceptions.
You said, "And you know that the polygamy argument is ludicrous. Children can't enter contracts. Marriage is a contract. So, children can't marry. You are completely impotent when it comes to stating clearly what manner of harm would come to society if gays were allowed to marry. I can easily point to the harm that would come to society if children were allowed to enter contracts. "
I think you meant my pedophile argument was ludicrous, right?
But I ask why do you think that? Just because children can't enter into contracts now, doesn't mean that wont be able to in the future.
More and more we see contracts with children for a multitude of reasons, child stars to be protected from greedy guardians, emancipation contracts that divorce children from their parents, contracts for marriage with parental consent. So contracts do already happen for children. There is no reason this can't happen more in the future for many more things.
We see countless problems in our society where individuals, companies and the government have made choices without looking towards the future and it has caused major problems. The housing market, the national debt, the continual borrowing from the reserve and so on. All of these actions have had consequences. And for us to continue to sit back and just be concerned for step one is not learning from the mistakes of the past.
All I am doing is trying to look ahead to what could happen. And I believe there is plenty of evidence here and now that shows that a slippery slope is very possible, if not already happening. -
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@John, you said "The original bible actually only says sex is for procreation so anyone having sex for other than that is living in sin." I am not aware of that verse. 1 Corinthians 7:5 says, "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." This suggests that sex should be done regularly in a committed relationship (whether gay or straight) so as to reduce sex done in a destructive and/or unhealthy manner.
-
NMANDINE | 05/17/2012 flag |
Sandstone, well said. Thank you.
-
Sandstone | 05/17/2012 flag |
My personal belief frames the Bible as written by people, societal cultures really, who blended actual and apocryphal events, along with their current (though dynamic) views of morality, in an effort to make sense of the human condition and all of creation. Am I saying there is no God? Of course not. Is the earth flat, motionless, and at the center of the universe as the Bible's authors apparently would have had us believe based upon their limited knowledge of science? Should women have the status of chattel or mere slaves? Was there really a flood that covered the entire earth in five miles of water? Did Christ actually walk on water? Is homosexuality truly an abomination before God? My own sense to each of these questions, and to many other Biblical precepts, is no. Others must decide for themselves what they choose to believe. I choose to be open to new ideas that challenge my perception of reality, "When the facts change so does the educated mind." That's how my brain try's to make sense of disparate events or conflicts in values, unconstrained by the beliefs of others who've been dead for thousands of years. There are some great ideas in the Bible that everyone ought to personally consider as they form their own moral code. But I believe it should be interpreted in a modern cultural context, rather than as a set of hard and fast rules for all time. I hope that the inherent sarcasm of my original blog posting was not too subtle. By the way, I have been happily married to an oppositely gendered person for many years and we have two great children. And in my view of reality, by what authority can I deny gays the same rights?
-
John | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Brian,, Funny how only parts of the bible are used and other parts are ignored when it suits the Christian Agenda. The original bible actually only says sex is for procreation so anyone having sex for other than that is living in sin. What did Jesus say about homosexuals...absolutely nothing.
-
Brian | 05/17/2012 flag |
@Will,, do you really think that asserting that the Bible is a 2000 year old faerie tale that we shouldn't base law o, is going to cause people to not base law on it? Its not. If you want to achieve that gaol, you're using the wrong tactic. The issue I'm concerned with is why so many people who want to base law on the Bible know so little about the Bible.
-
Will | 05/17/2012 flag |
Why is anything in 2012 being decided based on a badly written 2000 year old fairytale? There is no god. So the Bible is just a book of stories. So if a guy is with another guy it only offends people who don't like the idea. That's it. Notice says nothing about two girls, apparently according to Leviticus there's nothing wrong with that. You just want to take the rights of others based on a silly notion, just like your grandfather wanted to keep blacks from voting and his father wanted to keep women from voting. Sorry, that's just the facts. Stop hiding behind your dusty book of lies.
-
Sandstone | 05/16/2012 flag |
Let's send Mitt a rock!!
Mailmittarock.blogspot.com -
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
@Candie, "for those who do not know Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the acts going on in the cities" That's true. Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Sodom was NOT destroyed because its men were homosexual (NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that). Sodom was destroyed because its men did not help the poor and needy (such as the strangers - angels - who visited).
-
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
@Candie, the fact that you studied to be a pastor doesn't mean much unless you also tell me which Divinity school you attended and which degree program. There are a lot of Divinity schools out there whose academic credentials are lacking. Further, if you think that I've gotten something wrong, tell me what it is. I can tell you what my sources are. You can tell me what yours are. That's how scholarship works.
-
Candie | 05/16/2012 flag |
Brian read the Bible a little more. I went to school to be a pastor I have studied many different religions and went into the history of they sorties in that book do your research before you start shooting off you mouth about the bible. And for those who do not know Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the acts going on in the cities, not only that if you research it like I did some religions believe that the names of the cities actually stand for Sodomy and gonorrhea, which is why they were "bad cities" and destroyed. Jehovah's Witnesses believe this and so other religions.
-
Candie | 05/16/2012 flag |
I"M SAYING GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. READ MY POST AGAIN. I'M FOR GAY MARRIAGE I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS.
-
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
"The government states that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is nothing in the government definition that states that the couple have to love each other."
Are you attempting to assert that hetero people do not have the right to marry the people they love?
"I won't be able to speak to this too much as I will have to do more studying to speak intelligently with hermeneutics in mind." That's becoming increasingly obvious. You base your position that gays shouldn't have the right to marry, at least in part, on the Bible. Yet, you barely know the book.
The fact is that the Bible has nothing to say against homosexuals (other than in Leviticus where it is as bad as and no worse than eating Hamburger Helper).
"Do you read the bible in it's original languages?" I do. I have a degree in anthropology (in which I learned archaeology, cultural studies, linguistics, and human biological variation) from the University of Kentucky. I taught myself Biblical history and hermeneutics (though the critical reading skills I picked up in my degree were certainly helpful) and Bible scholarship.
"My issue isn't with how the bible defines marriage, but how the USA government does. They currently define it as a union between one man and one woman." Then you have no problems with the US government changing the law to include gay marriage? Or does your argument that "we should stick to what the USA government law says about marriage" stand only as long as the USA government does not support gay marriage (ie. will you assert, when gay marriage is made legal, that the US government law is wrong?)
"The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations. " Then your wrong. Creating a child is easy and takes about nine months. Raising that child can take anywhere from 18 to 24 years. A gay uncle can help raise that child without the distractions of his own children.
And you know that the polygamy argument is ludicrous. Children can't enter contracts. Marriage is a contract. So, children can't marry. You are completely impotent when it comes to stating clearly what manner of harm would come to society if gays were allowed to marry. I can easily point to the harm that would come to society if children were allowed to enter contracts. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Candie,
You said, "It's love, they want to spend their lives with the person they love."
Who says they can't spend their lives with the person they love? They can do that now, without a marriage license.
You said, "They should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as straights."
They do have the same rights as straights. Every individual has exactly the same rights. The rights, restrictions and the privileges are the same for every citizen of the USA.
Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
You say a lot about separation of church and state, but it's not the church that has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it is the US government that has done that. DOMA (1996) has declared that the actual definition that the Union abides by.
If you want that changed, you will have to go to court and get the Senate, and Congress to submit that there should be a change. But as of yet, it's strictly the governments idea of what marriage is defined as. The church has nothing to do about it. It is truly separate as you have said it should be.
You said, "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Therefore gay marriage should allowed."
I agree. And it hasn't. but just because something that the government has defined as a law aligns itself with a particular religious group doesn't mean that it was influenced by that group. The government agrees that it is wrong for someone to premeditated murder. If the Christian church agrees with that does that mean we need to allow premeditated murder because it has to be separate from the church? I would suggest you think this one through a little more. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
NMANDINE, I apologize for the explanations being so long. But I have found that it's the only way to communicate what I am meaning without having a back and forth of 'he said, she said', if that makes sense. I will do my best to shorten them if that will help.
Congrats on the dual citizenship!
And please, consider what I have said. I understand that we disagree. But I hope that I have brought something to the table for you to think about. I value your thoughts and comments. I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my long winded novels. -
NMANDINE | 05/16/2012 flag |
Albert, stop giving long winded explanations that verge on exasperation. Just know that I disagree with you and should I have the opportunity and privilege to vote so this becomes a federal law, I will vote for it. You can try all you want to give me this way or that way of thinking about it, my mind is as made up as yours. By the way... I can vote in France. I have dual citizenship!
-
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Jerilyn
I think I answered several of these in my recent posts to Brian and NMANDINE
I'm not taking a Christian view point of this argument. I am taking the view point that the slippery slope will result in more damage then if we leave the definition of marriage alone. I'm not even considering so much homosexuality rather than what might come after it in wanting to redefine marriage for what they want.
The USA government has define marriage for its borders. I live within these borders so this is what I am discussing. If Europe choose tomorrow to allow murderers to run amok, that is up to them. But I would not want that here in the US so I would fight against letting such at thing happen. I don't have rights in Europe, Canada, or Africa so I don't speak to those countries because I don't hold a steak in the outcomes there. But I do have a steak in what happens in the US. Every US citizen has a steak in what happens in this country, equally.
You said, "It means that Just because Christians think Gay Marriage is is unnatural is no reason for their majority to force their version of marriage on unsuspecting non Christians or fellow Christians Period."
So because some non-Christians don't care if gay marriage is unnatural they are allowed to force their version of marriage on unsuspecting Christians? Again, we both have the right to speak up for what we believe. If we don't agree, that's fine, lets discuss it and find a solution rather then just demand that everyone follow what we believe.
"I don't believe in meat eating as a rule! I surely don't believe Marriage between a man and a woman is the only way marriage should be defined. I believe in a Matriarchal society. Yet I know that I have to respect the rights of others!"
You mean as you respect my rights as a Christian, right? Because that is what you are doing when you tell me that just because Christians believe a certain way doesn't give them the right to force what they believe on others right? There is contradiction on your words.
You claim to say you respect the rights of others on one hand while you want to repress what Christians think on the other hand. You can't have it both ways.
This is why each individual has the right to vote their conscience. If you want a bill passed in to law, you vote on it. And may the bill with the most votes win. It's technically not forcing a belief on someone if we all have an equal vote. It just means that more people believe it is better for the country to vote a certain way. that is not unfair, it's just fact.
You said, "And yes Albert, you have trouble with Non Christians!"
You keep saying this, but I don't. What trouble do I have with non-Christians? You seem to know me so well, then tell me what these troubles are. And please, no generalizations as that means you are lumping me into a bucket with all other Christians. And quite honestly, I'm my own person. I'm not like all Christians.
you said, "As for Polygamists being shot down, you might want to think about why they were shot down! They supported polygamy but had a problem with polyandry ( a female with two husbands) Canada just decided that hypocracy was not a grounds for granting religions freedom!""
Who supported polygamy but not polyandry? Are you meaning Canada or the polygamists? And what's your point?
My point was that Canada already has same-sex marriage and polygamists are trying to get their day in court. This, to me, shows that the slippery slope is alive and well. That at some point the polygamists will win and then it will be on to the next group.
You said, "As for the Pedophiles; just because Pedophiles want to marry. That argument is flawwed on the face.
In what way is it flawed? You don't believe that if homosexuals take 20 years to change the minds of the public to be more accepting of them that it's not possible for pedophiles to do the same? If doctors are already looking at redefining them as their own sexual orientation isn't it possible that we might, in the future, have to accept them as they are? After all, they will have been born that way, right? And we can't allow someone that is born a certain way to not be allowed to do what they want, right?
You then said, If Pedophilia is defined as another sexual orientation, Pedophiles may well find themselves under closer scrutiny simply because they will redefine themselves and Maternal Mania and Paternal mania will also be defined. That means that if a Pedophine redefines themselves as different, so will the people who want to do themselves harm! After all , one will be a redefinition of sexuality, the other will be a redefinition of parental responses."
I'm not clear about what you mean by Maternal or Parental mania. Are you meaning that if pedophiles redefine themselves as another sexual orientation that parents will take matters into their own hands and beat down pedophiles? It would help if you explained this a bit more.
You said, "And since when does Western society have the right to define history."
History is created as we move through time. It's definition is based on our actions today. The only way we might define what history becomes is if we concern ourselves with how we respond to things now. And every country, society and person has a right to define history as the want it to be. And that definition can either be from action or apathy. That's each persons choice.
You said, "As a Black person, I fail to see how giving rights to LBGT people would diminish our rights!"
I never said it would diminish other peoples rights. I'm not sure where you got that from.
You said, "What I am seeing is that Certain Blacks don't have the same rights as (Yikes) Christian blacks. It is amazing how non Christian blacks who fought for rights are suddenly swept aside bu the "church Blacks" Black Muslims who probably made more inroads with the NRA whites are suddenly defined as terrorists. But I digress. Please explain this to me! "
I'm not clear on what rights Christian blacks have the non-Christian blacks don't have. Perhaps you could tell me what those rights are? And I'm not clear on the whole Muslim/terrorist comment. That might need more examples of what you are meaning. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
NMANDINE
you said, "If this is the definition (and I believe you that it is) then I think it should be changed to “a contract between two people” this way, it stops polygamy right there and then."
Just wondering, if you are so much for equal rights, then why not allow polygamy? Wouldn't defining marriage as a contract between two people be keeping polygamists from having the same equal rights as all the straight and gay people? Why chose to lock it down to two people?
You said, "What do you mean giving the LGBT special rights? It is not a special right for someone to want to be married. This is what you guys don’t understand. They are human beings who want to be married. What is wrong with giving them the same chance at a 50% divorce rate as heterosexual couples??"
Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
If I'm born a citizen of the US then I have all rights, privileges and restrictions that being born there allows, equally to every other naturally born citizen.
My neighbor, Sam, was born in the USA as well. That means he gets every right, privilege and restriction that I got because we are both equally citizens of the USA.
We both have the right to vote in the USA. And we both don't have the right to vote in France. But I find that I am not interested in US politics but more partial to European concerns. I can't complain and say, "Sam gets to vote in California, but I don't get to vote in France. That's unequal protection under the law. He has a right that I don't have!"
Of course I can't do that. We both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire that is not the state's concern.
You said, "Gays do not have equal rights. They cannot make decisions for their loved ones in hospitals, even with court orders in some states, they cannot file joint taxes, they cannot get health insurance for their significant other, and there are no social security survivor benefits, the list goes on and on.
Is this what equal rights means to you?"
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.
However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
You said, "This will not open a slippery slope. By the way, this is what men used to say way back when women wanted the right to vote. This will open a slippery slope, they will want to have equal pay and so on and so forth… Equal pay for women? Surely not! But that’s a whole other argument…"
And look what happened. Women got equal pay and so on, right? So they were correct in their assessment of that slippery slope, right? The difference is that slope was for the positive. Women should get equal pay as long as they are equally skilled. And they should get more pay then men if they are more skilled.
But the slippery slope I am talking about would actually destroy what marriage means. It would turn it into whatever anyone wants it to mean. Every relationship imaginable would be possible because once we allow one group to change it's definition we open the door for others to do so as well.
you said, "I’m not going to respond to the pedophiles issue you brought up because as much as I try, I can’t see what this has to do with this at all. And really? Dogs marrying men, and horses marrying women?"
Ok, now you’ve opened a whole lot of crazy and that again has nothing to do with the issue unless you want to take Peewee Herman wanting to marry his salad seriously."
Yes, seriously. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm finding sources for it everywhere. You can ignore the pedophilia issue all you want, there are doctors out there currently wanting to define it as it's own sexual orientation.
Here are the same links I gave to Brian earlier.
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=7027
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/#ixzz1ZHzQn3Sy
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/
This is where my concern sits. If this is possible today, what will happen in the future?
You said, "And why did you parenthesize “born that way”? Are you one of those people who think it’s a choice? Because if you are, then yes, I’m sure these people would choose this life of being second class citizens, of not having equal rights, of getting beaten up, and of being bigoted against."
I used parenthesize around the phrase because there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. There is no gay gene that has been found. If you know different, please provide me with resources and I will remove the parenthesize. But until then, this is another excuse as to why we should accept it.
But I need to ask the question, if someone is born a certain way, why does that give credence to certain rights or privileges? Pedophiles are currently defined as being born that way. It's considered a disease right now. An abnormality. So why don't we just accept them for who they are? Could we say the same for serial killers or murderers? Where does being born that way make a difference in what rights and privileges are different then for anyone else?
Ethnicity is defined from conception. It's not something that will change over time. But homosexuality, so far, has been shown to be behavioral. It can change. There are people that considered themselves homosexual and are now considering themselves heterosexual. Some have even gone to the extent of getting married to someone of the opposite sex and have had children. And to top it off, they are completely content living this way. Their behavior changed. That can't happen for ethnicity.
You said, "Gosh, put that way, I kind of wish I had made that choice!"
You have that right to do so. I'm not sure what your husband would think, but hey, go for it.
You said, You say, why have we not heard of this since now? We have. Where have you been? I know I’ve heard of it ever since the Clinton era."
I guess I was meaning more in the general sense of it all. It has really become a forefront issue. Where in the 70's and 80's it was hardly heard about.
It really comes down to one thing. Acceptance. I have offered the same legal marital benefits to homosexuals under the Civil Union envelope and I have been denied in that is not good enough. So this showed me that this was not about equal rights.
I have been posting this quote because I believe it sums up what is really the issue for homosexuals and same-sex marriage: Andrew Sullivan, the intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, ‘Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.’” (“Will Gay Marriage be Legal?” Time, 2/21/00.)
Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe: The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically--by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "Its ludicrous to claim that they have the same rights as everyone else when they don't have the right to marry the person they love (a right everyone else has)."
The government states that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is nothing in the government definition that states that the couple have to love each other.
Every citizen in the USA has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that someone doesn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they don't have the same rights.
I love my best friend. I have a very special bond with him and I want to nurture that relationship and make it the best relationship possible. But I can't marry him. Not that I would want to, but if I did, I still couldn't do it.
I could love my horse and consider that a very special relationship but I can't marry my horse either.
If I hang out with my best friends wife and end up falling in love with her, I can't marry her either.
So to say that homosexuals are being restricted because they can't marry someone they love is not true. We all fall under the same rules for who we can and can not marry. It's the same across the board.
All US citizens all have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. To disregard the truth that we all have the same rights is to not be honest with yourself.
The fact that someone doesn't want to marry, or marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that they don't have the right to do so.
You said, "By "based in part on the KJV" what I mean is that the KJV was used to help figure out what the proper translation should be."
This is not something I know about. Do you have any references that show how you came to know this? I'm curious to how or even why they would use the KJV when they have the manuscripts to go by. It's always good to learn something new.
You said, "I'm discussing just hermeneutics."
Fair enough. I won't be able to speak to this too much as I will have to do more studying to speak intelligently with hermeneutics in mind.
You said, "These translators aren't perfect. Only God is. And to just trust in these translators isn't Biblical. The Bible says that we should study to show ourselves approved. The Bible also says (and I paraphrase) that even the Devil can use Scripture. So, we can't just trust these translators. We must study the Scripture (including the veracity of any translation) for ourselves."
Again, I don't disagree with that. I am a firm believer that the more we know the better off we are in knowing what is the truth.
Do you read the bible in it's original languages? If so, where did you go to school? I am interesting in finding a really good school that teaches the biblical languages. There isn't much in my area that I know of.
You said, "Even within the Bible, the meaning of 'marriage' has changed (it used to include paying a bride price, having multiple wives, and marrying young girls - it doesn't include that any longer). The meaning of 'marriage' continues to change and is very socio-cultural specific. Even within Christian history, there have been times in the past when gay marriage was permitted (see affrerement in France)."
That is why I have tried to leave the bible out of the conversation. My issue isn't with how the bible defines marriage, but how the USA government does. They currently define it as a union between one man and one woman.
I believe there are good reasons to not change this that I have stated in many posts on this thread. The fact that one male and one female are ideal in the creation of a child, to me, shows that the natural functions of their bodies join together to produce the community of the future generations. This helps preserve the USA and the governments interests in supporting that type of relationship. Though I understand that there is not always ideal situations, I believe the government sees it as a vested interest to support the ideal.
And again, this is why each individual has the same rights as every other individual and we can all vote for the bills that we want passed into law. And if and when same-sex marriage is passed, at the federal level, we will see if our choice, as a country was the right one or not. I just hope and pray that the slippery slope I am speaking of does not happen and I'm proven wrong. Lord knows, I don't want to be right on this issue. My fear though, is that I am. -
NMANDINE | 05/16/2012 flag |
Albert,
I’m just going to give you some quick answers because I don’t think we will ever agree and we could go round and round forever and get nowhere.
If this is the definition (and I believe you that it is) then I think it should be changed to “a contract between two people” this way, it stops polygamy right there and then. Thank goodness we evolve and change as we grow. Otherwise, black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus unable to vote, women would still be in the kitchen unable to vote, it would still be illegal for a black person to marry a white one and we would still punish adulterers by death (according to the bible).
What do you mean giving the LGBT special rights? It is not a special right for someone to want to be married. This is what you guys don’t understand. They are human beings who want to be married. What is wrong with giving them the same chance at a 50% divorce rate as heterosexual couples?? Gays do not have equal rights. They cannot make decisions for their loved ones in hospitals, even with court orders in some states, they cannot file joint taxes, they cannot get health insurance for their significant other, and there are no social security survivor benefits, the list goes on and on. Is this what equal rights means to you? Again, we’re back to the 50’s and I say again, this is the same fight. There are no equal rights for the LGBT. You’re right, a gay black man and a gay white man have the same rights. But they are not the same equal rights as a straight white man or a straight black man.
This will not open a slippery slope. By the way, this is what men used to say way back when women wanted the right to vote. This will open a slippery slope, they will want to have equal pay and so on and so forth… Equal pay for women? Surely not! But that’s a whole other argument…
Why do I say well done Christians? Because at the risk of talking out of where the sun doesn’t shine, I’m going to have to assume that most people who are dead against this are extreme religious right wing people. No, I do not have statistics as none have been made as far as I know, but let’s just go by what we’ve read and hear on the news. Who have been the strongest voices against this?
I’m not going to respond to the pedophiles issue you brought up because as much as I try, I can’t see what this has to do with this at all. And really? Dogs marrying men, and horses marrying women? Ok, now you’ve opened a whole lot of crazy and that again has nothing to do with the issue unless you want to take Peewee Herman wanting to marry his salad seriously.
I believe in equal rights for all. Do you have children? I do. Mine were born straight. But I have a niece who was born gay and I wish she would have the same equal rights as everyone else. I also have a friend of mine whose son was born gay and I would like the same equal rights for him as well. And why did you parenthesize “born that way”? Are you one of those people who think it’s a choice? Because if you are, then yes, I’m sure these people would choose this life of being second class citizens, of not having equal rights, of getting beaten up, and of being bigoted against. Gosh, put that way, I kind of wish I had made that choice! You say, why have we not heard of this since now? We have. Where have you been? I know I’ve heard of it ever since the Clinton era. -
Albert | 05/16/2012 flag |
Brian You said, "I thought the pedophile thing was just a standard troll poster on the Internet."
You could be correct in that statement depending on what the subject is and the context of which it is being used.
In this case, I'm not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I am trying to demonstrate why I believe the slippery slope to be something we need to be concerned with.
My issue isn't with homosexuals, but with redefining the word marriage. I have tried very hard to explain this and I keep having to reiterate it because people don't seem to want to concede that issue.
Here are three links that I have read in the past that lead me to believe that it's only a matter of time before pedophiles will be considered misunderstood people and that we should accept them for their behavior.
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=7027
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/#ixzz1ZHzQn3Sy
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/
You said, "Obviously a marriage is a contract and children do not have the right to enter contracts. Parents don't have the right to force kids into contracts. So, even if pedophiles could marry whom they want to, children don't have the right to marry."
For currently, at this time, that is correct. But things change, right? And that is what I'm talking about. Not now, when we have these limits on contracts but it is a possibility that it could happen.
Just like same-sex marriage, there are certain arguments that are used to say that it's okay.
Such as:
- People should be allowed to marry who they love.
- They are consenting adults.
- Everyone deserves equal rights
- If you don't like it, don't do it.
Each one of those arguments could very well be used for polygamy. The fact that the group in Canada used an religious argument just shows that they chose the wrong argument. They might very well come back and argue with the points above.
But what I'm trying to show is that once you allow one group to change the definition of a word, there is nothing to stop other groups from doing the same, wouldn't you agree?
Does it take time? Sure it does. But that is all it takes. Once Same-sex marriage has redefined the word marriage, and I'm not fooling myself here, I am sure it will happen, in time; Polygamists will be right on their coat tails fighting for their equal rights.
And my fear is that if those 3 articles that I linked to are the future then I could see pedophiles being the next in line.
That is what is called a slippery slope. And when we don't think about future consequences for our actions now, we sometimes open a door that we probably didn't really want to have opened.
If you want to consider my trying to get people to think about the consequences of their actions now and how they could maybe effect future events, trolling, then so be it. But I'm not doing it to just make people mad. I'm not here to put down homosexuals or to say they are stupid or immoral.
I'm here to say that we should really think before we take the steps to redefine something that could open the door for other groups that even most same-sex supporters would not want to happen.
I believe that humans have value. Regardless if they are gay, straight, or somewhere in between. And because of that we all need to show respect for them, their ideas, and their thoughts.
I am grateful that you take the time to respond to my questions and that we discuss these issues so that we all have a better understanding where each of us stand. I think it's important to know all sides of an issue so that we can do better at making the right choices.
So with all that being said, I really hope that you take what I'm saying and think about it in light of what "could" happen. Not how it is now, but how it might be in the future. Are there issues about allowing the word marriage to be redefined that might cause you to consider it something that maybe shouldn't be done or does it matter what might happen in the future to you? -
Brian | 05/16/2012 flag |
@Jerilyn, I thought the pedophile thing was just a standard troll poster on the Internet. Obviously a marriage is a contract and children do not have the right to enter contracts. Parents don't have the right to force kids into contracts. So, even if pedophiles could marry whom they want to, children don't have the right to marry.
-
Jerilyn | 05/16/2012 flag |
It means that Just because Christians think Gay Marriage is is unnatural is no reason for their majority to force their version of marriage on unsuspecting non Christians or fellow Christians Period. I don't believe in meat eating as a rule! I surely don't believe Marriage between a man and a woman is the only way marriage should be defined. I believe in a Matriarchal society . Yet I know that I have to respect the rights of others! And yes Albert, you have trouble with Non Christians! As for Polygamists being shot down, you might want to think about why they were shot down! They supported polygamy but had a problem with polyandry ( a female with two husbands) Canada just decided that hypocracy was not a grounds for granting religions freedom! However, Tibet does practice Polyandry!
As for the Pedophiles; just because Pedophiles want to marry. That argument is flawwed on the face. If Pedophilia is defined as another sexual orientation, Pedophiles may well find themselves under closer scrutiny simply because they will redefine themselves and Maternal Mania and Paternal mania will also be defined. That means that if a Pedophine redefines themselves as different, so will the people who want to do themselves harm! After all , one will be a redefinition of sexuality, the other will be a redefinition of parental responses.
And since when does Western society have the right to define history. In Africa, there were several thriving Matriarchies. The most well known were the Hottentots and the Punts. So mentioning bride prices is purely prejudicial!
As a Black person, I fail to see how giving rights to LBGT people would diminish our rights! What I am seeing is that Certain Blacks don't have the same rights as (Yikes) Christian blacks. It is amazing how non Christian blacks who fought for rights are suddenly swept aside bu the "church Blacks" Black Muslims who probably made more inroads with the NRA whites are suddenly defined as terrorists. But I digress. Please explain this to me! -
Candie | 05/16/2012 flag |
I'm sorry, disagree with me if you want, I do not care. I think that gay marriage should be allowed. Why should someone be shunned of marrying someone they love just because they are the same sex. It's love, they want to spend their lives with the person they love. They should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as straights. In the constitution it says that religion and state are to be separate. If they are to be separate why are gay people suffering by not being allowed to marry the one they love because religion says it's wrong,religion should have nothing to do with laws, read the constitution it says "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Therefore gay marriage should allowed.
-
Brian | 05/15/2012 flag |
Its ludicrous to claim that they have the same rights as everyone else when they don't have the right to marry the person they love (a right everyone else has).
@Albert
By "based in part on the KJV" what I mean is that the KJV was used to help figure out what the proper translation should be.
"have they proven the bible manuscripts wrong in anyway or just helped to clarify points that have been debatable?"
Let me make this clear. I am not interested in debating whether the Bible is true. This is the Internet. That seems like a endless debate. I'm discussing just hermeneutics.
"if the translators are doing their best to get the text right that is in the manuscript evidence, then I have no problem believing the translations anymore then I would have no problem trusting or basing my knowledge off the 1000 year old manuscripts." These translators aren't perfect. Only God is. And to just trust in these translators isn't Biblical. The Bible says that we should study to show ourselves approved. The Bible also says (and I paraphrase) that even the Devil can use Scripture. So, we can't just trust these translators. We must study the Scripture (including the veracity of any translation) for ourselves.
"How do you know that these books that are mentioning that there are problems are telling the truth?" You don't unless you study the Bible in the original languages so as to affirm for yourself what the Bible is saying. That's one of the many reasons it is important to study the Bible in the original language.
"I believe I have tried to show that there are good enough arguments against redefining it without bringing the bible into it."
Even within the Bible, the meaning of 'marriage' has changed (it used to include paying a bride price, having multiple wives, and marrying young girls - it doesn't include that any longer). The meaning of 'marriage' continues to change and is very socio-cultural specific. Even within Christian history, there have been times in the past when gay marriage was permitted (see affrerement in France). -
Kait | 05/15/2012 flag |
It always amazes me how people spend so much time and energy trying to destroy the happiness of others.
-
Albert | 05/15/2012 flag |
NMANDINE
You said, "I think before the argument of redefining or defining the meaning of what marriage is, we should all try to figure out what the word first means."
I agree with you, that is a great place to start!
But to start there we must first understand what the boundaries are for this discussion. I believe this post was presented with the USA in mind with the protests, signs and the like. Countries, like Canada, are already supporting same-sex marriage so the issue for them is moot for them. That's not to say that they can't give their input, but the voters of the USA are the ones that will make the law change or not.
So should we agree that we will discuss this argument from the point of view of America and not other countries? If so, then we can begin. If not, then we need to first define the boundaries. I will continue with an assumption that this is your concurrence.
What does the US Government currently, at the federal level, define marriage to be? I think the DOMA will help us understand the current definition according to the US government.
Reference: H.R.3396 -- Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR) - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:
It states:
Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
This is what the official definition is currently. So this is where we should start the discussion, which is where I have been arguing from.
You said, "This is what the word means when the bible is not entered into the discussion... Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity."
That is a great overview of many different ways marriage is seen from country to country. Are you sure the bible isn't in any of those definitions? I'm guessing that last one possibly has some reference to a religion of some sort. I could be wrong depending on where you are referring to.
You then said, "So, if we go about it with just that meaning, then I don't really understand why people are against it. If they don't like it, then don't do it."
There are doctors out there that are currently trying to get pedophilia to be considered just another sexual orientation. If they win their day in court and get that passed then pedophiles could very well want to be able to marry too. Are you okay with saying that if you don't like it, then don't do it, in regards to pedophiles marrying?
You said, "Gay men and women go to war for this country, some die for our freedom. Yet, when they come back, they are faced with this type of controversy which gives them no freedom of equal rights. They have the right to die for our country but not to marry because some find it "icky". "
I salute and thank every solder that goes to war and puts their life on the line for this country. I am proud that they are willing to put their life on the line to defend a country they love enough to stand behind. I don't see gay, straight, man or women when it comes to the military. I see people willing to fight for freedom. And I thank every solder I see regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. But something I'm sure you know is that the laws of the US are granted to individuals, not to groups.
All individuals of the US have the right to marry.
You said, "I find this whole thing disgusting. We are right now fighting the same fight blacks fought back in the 50's for their equal rights only now substitute black for gay."
Actually this is not the same fight blacks fought for in the 50's. Blacks were fighting for equal rights. Gays have equal rights.
A gay white man has exactly the same rights as a gay black man who has exactly the same rights as a straight white man who has exactly the same rights as a straight black man. And the same for LGBTS people who are citizens of the USA. Each individual has the same rights as any other individual. No one has special treatment, which is what the LGBT supporters are actually wanting.
If we give the LGBT special rights we will no longer have equal rights. And all that the blacks in the 50's fought for will have been lost. The only difference is now it's not a matter of skin color, but of sexual orientation.
you said, "Well done Christians, well done!"
Why do you say this? Is it only Christians that are standing up for no redefining the word marriage? I know of many people that are no Christian that are standing up right next to me saying the same thing as me. It shouldn't be redefined because it causes a slippery slope that may not happen now, but in years to come. And even the LGBT supporters may not like the outcome of that situation.
You said, "Before you say what I am... I am a 46 year old woman, who has been married to her husband for 21 years."
I applaud you for being 46! I am too, though I don't consider that old just yet. And to be married to the same man for 21 years is a great accomplishment in this day and age. I, myself, have been married for 12 years now. I can't wait to celebrate 21 as you have!
but lets not get caught up in the emotion of this issue and consider the issue itself. If we allow the word marriage to be redefined we open the door for it to be redefined again and again and again for whatever group wants to go into court to get that done.
Perhaps that doesn't sound like such a big deal, but look around at all of those countries that you mentioned in your long definition of marriage. Those like Canada, who currently has equality marriages. They recently shot down a group of polygamist that are wanting to be added to the equality marriage list. And they were very close to winning, and might just win in appeals. The future will tell. But that might not be something that you care about right? So lets consider that there have been doctors trying to get pedophilia defined as its own sexual orientation. That means it will not longer be illegal, because they were just "born that way", right? Sound familiar? And no, I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as pedophiles. I'm showing you that other groups can use the same arguments that the LBGT has used to get their acceptance. So then what? Lets say they get pedophilia redefined, how long before they want to be accepted just as the LBGt want acceptance? I know, it sounds far fetched, but you're 46, right? How long ago do you remember this issue of same-sex marriage being an issue? It pretty much came out of no where, right? And now it's in full force to be accepted. Well, how can we say the same won't happen for other groups? Look up man wants to marry his horse. Kind of puts things into perspective, if you ask me.
Anyway, I believe that the government already has a definition for the word marriage. I think we should not change it. -
NMANDINE | 05/15/2012 flag |
I think before the argument of redefining or defining the meaning of what marriage is, we should all try to figure out what the word first means.
This is what the word means when the bible is not entered into the discussion...
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.
So, if we go about it with just that meaning, then I don't really understand why people are against it. If they don't like it, then don't do it.
Gay men and women go to war for this country, some die for our freedom. Yet, when they come back, they are faced with this type of controversy which gives them no freedom of equal rights. They have the right to die for our country but not to marry because some find it "icky". I find this whole thing disgusting. We are right now fighting the same fight blacks fought back in the 50's for their equal rights only now substitute black for gay. Well done christians, well done!
Before you say what I am... I am a 46 year old woman, who has been married to her husband for 21 years. -
Albert | 05/15/2012 flag |
Jerilyn, You said, "I know you have problems with non Christians. What part is confusing you?"
Not sure how you have figured that I have problems with non-Christians, but I would say that is an incorrect statement. I don't have any problems with non-Christians. I have a problem with people that want to redefine the word marriage without thinking of the implications that could happen from doing so.
The whole comment is confusing me. I seemed that you were explaining that the Dali Lama was corrected, and you said that he was corrected, but I'm not clear on the point you were trying to make unless it is that the Dali Lama was corrected.
You had this one line in your comment, "Hence we reminded ourselves who Buddhism has no POPE!"
Okay, I can read that and say, Buddhism doesn't have a pope. Okay. But is your post relating back to the overall post? If so, I'm not sure what your getting at. I guess I'm just not understanding what your point was. Sorry, I wish I did know. -
Albert | 05/15/2012 flag |
Jerilyn
You said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And yet Christians expect us to give them place in the religious world."
What do you mean 'expect us to give them place in the religious world'?
You said, "Only scientists that agree with them are right i.e you can believe in Sodom and Gomorrah but you can't believe in the still standing city of Mathura II."
Never heard of Mathura II. I Googled it and I'm getting back a lot of results but I'm not sure I have anything that will help me know what it is. If it's still a standing city, what would Christians deny it?
And a quick question about the first part of that comment, you said that Christians believe only scientists that agree with them. That's fairly general don't you think? Could you be more specific?
Quite honestly, I don't judge a scientist by what they believe or know but by what their research revels, don't you?
Wouldn't you disregard research that has shown to be manipulated or distorted from what really is the truth? Shouldn't we all, non-Christian and Christian a like be looking for what is the truth and not for what fits our world view?
Would it be fairer if you instead said, "Some Christians don't dig enough into the subjects themselves to come to a conclusion that is truthful but rather they just believe the first scientist that agrees with what they already want to believe?" Would that be a better way to put it?
If that is more along the lines of what you mean, I could say that about non-Christians too, don't you think? There are tons of people out there that hold to a biased opinion about what they believe is the truth without doing any research to make sure it is the truth.
Now, that being said, shouldn't we all be looking for what is true and disregarding anything that is not the truth? Granted it's not always black and white and we shouldn't just discount something because it doesn't fit our world view, would you agree?
You said, "They can believe scriptures speaking of their god being risen. However, any mention of the scriptures of Tsu Tsin are just communist propaganda!
I Googled Tsu Tsin and all I find are sites for little figurines for Hell Dorado. Perhaps I'm missing something or is this who you are meaning to refer to? If not, do you have any references so I can speak to this intelligently instead of thinking it's a statue of some sort?
Then you ended with, "They understand Zen Buddhism which is truthfully just the Shinto religion being called Buddhism, And yet they have never read a Mahayanist scripture! : or a Theravada scripture for that manner.
And I thought Hindus were bad! "
I'm not clear about what you are are getting at. Are you trying to say that Christians who don't read about Shinto or Tsu Tsin don't know what they are talking about?
You have made comparison of biblical scriptures to the scriptures of Tsu Tsin. Is there a point to this? Are you saying that Tsu Tsin is the true scriptures and the bible is wrong? If not, I'm not following you. Forgive my ignorance on this but perhaps you could elaborate and help me understand the point you were wanting to make. -
Albert | 05/15/2012 flag |
Brian, You said, "the King James Bible was written in 1604. Many of the Bibles written since then have been based, in part, on the KJV."
What do you mean 'based, in part' on the KJV? Can you explain this in a little more detail?
You said, "Would you base your knowledge of physics on a book written 400 years ago? I wouldn't. So, why would you base your knowledge of the Bible on the science of linguistics known 400 years ago? There's been a lot of advances since then regarding linguistics and archaeology."
These advances in linguistics and archaeology, have they proven the bible manuscripts wrong in anyway or just helped to clarify points that have been debatable? If they have proven them wrong, in what way?
In short, if a book that is 400 or even 1000 years old is show to be truthful, I have no reason not to base anything on it as long as it is solid. Can there be new information learned that changes what is in that book? Sure. And because of that we normal fall to the new book for our information. I have no problem with that. But if the translators are doing their best to get the text right that is in the manuscript evidence, then I have no problem believing the translations anymore then I
would have no problem trusting or basing my knowledge off the 1000 year old manuscripts. Does that answer that question?
You said, "As for the newer Bibles that were based directly on the ancient scripture, there's been a lot of problems with them as well."
I agree. There are many bibles that don't translate word for word. But we first have to make sure that the intent of the translation was to be a word for word translation, right? Some are written to be just that, word for word. So because of that, sometimes the sentences don't make sense in the language they are translated into. So this makes other groups want to create a bible that is easier to read, even if it isn't a word for word translation. They take on the role of interpreting the manuscripts to see if they can find the best wording in the receiving language to help keep the intent of the original language. This want the message is conveyed correctly even if they didn't go word for word. And then you have paraphrased bibles, like the message, that is definitely a translation that is really made to be understood by the masses.
I say all that to say that I agree with you that there is problems with most if not all translations. The question is, are those problems big enough to make a difference in what what intended to be said?
Thanks for the reference, by the way, I haven't read that one before but I have seen some other works from Metzger and this will be a great read to get.
I read somewhere that Metzger stated an amazing fact that there are enough ancient extra-biblical sources (characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers) that record the Scriptures, that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed,there would be sufficient extra-biblical sources to reconstruct that entire New Testament. Just a cool fact I thought I would mention.
You then said, "This emphasizes and clarifies the need to study the Bible in the original languages."
I never disagreed that this is a great thing to do, but I don't believe it's necessary. And I'll tell you why.... some claim that we can't trust the bible from the english translations we have because people have found problems(though they normally don't state what those problems are) and because of these problems, the only way we can know for sure that we are reading what the bible actually says is if we read them in the original languages.
So let me ask you something, How do you know that these books that are mentioning that there are problems are telling the truth? How do you know that they are not just making it up and hoping that no one goes back and reads the original language to find out that they are wrong?
Instead of believing these books that say there are problems in the bible, shouldn't we be looking at the original language to make sure that those books are telling the truth for ourselves?
You said, "Now, you asked who the early Bible scholar was who wrote of men being arsenokoitai with their wives. It was John the Faster in his 'Penitential'. And, since you asked, I've read the passage where he makes the statement."
That's great! I have done some research and I too found John Nesteute or as you referred to him, John the Faster.
Because I'm not a bible scholar and I don't know the original languages myself, I have to do a lot more searching to understand what the word arsenokoitai means.
If I come across a meaning on a site that is in favor of the bible they say it means one thing. And of course, as you would expect, if someone is against the bible, then they say it means something else. So I am still weeding through the mud to get to what it really means.
Until then, I will continue to search for the truth. Care to join me on that journey or do you just want to settle for a meaning that fits to your liking?
The basis for my arguments on this thread have nothing to do with homosexuality itself. As far as I'm concerned homosexuals already have the right to marry, just like everyone else.
I am here to discuss the redefining of the word marriage. And I believe I have tried to show that there are good enough arguments against redefining it without bringing the bible into it.
Here is the deal. I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God. I believe that there is plenty of evidence that shows it to be true.
And I say this part with all honesty, I could be wrong.
I have no problem being wrong. But I have yet to see evidence that shows me it to be wrong. And until then, I will continue believing what I believe.
And the same for redefining the word marriage. I believe that if we allow it to be redefined it will open the door to other groups of people that even more homosexual supporters would not want to redefining the word marriage to meet their needs.
Sorry for the novel. I just wanted to make sure I answered your comments.
