View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 3:18 am



Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 NY passes marriage equality 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
njroar wrote:
NJ has had civil unions forever yet didn't have to legalize marriage. Many, not all, just want to desecrate anything religious and throw it in their face. The Federal government just needs to say all rights go across the board with civil unions, and have it both ways and say marriage is classified as between man and a woman. If they get the rights, then why bother using the term. Unless they want the 50% divorce rate as well.

The only thing I would change here is that the religious institutions can define the term "marriage" as they choose (keeping a term similar to 'civil union' for ALL State recognized formal relationships)

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


June 28th, 2011, 4:42 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Correct. The problem is that many of those pushing the gay marriage bills, are also pushing laws to FORCE churches to perform gay marriages.


June 28th, 2011, 4:44 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
njroar wrote:
Correct. The problem is that many of those pushing the gay marriage bills, are also pushing laws to FORCE churches to perform gay marriages.

To be honest, I think that's the first I've heard of that and IF true, I would not support that. Goes back to separation of Church and State IMO. Which begs the question, could the Govt's attempt to define 'marriage' be a violation of said separation???

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


June 28th, 2011, 4:47 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
There is no separation actually. The only evidence people call up is a personal letter from Jefferson. The constitution lays out that the government can't make laws concerning religion. Marriage because a federal issue when it comes to benefits and rights of the spouse, so technically the definition of marriage never breached it. But because the ceremony itself can be performed by Judge, Mayor, Ship Captain, or member of the church, the union issues isn't a problem. Them trying to force Churches to perform under the guise of Bigotry would be a serious breach of the constitution.


June 28th, 2011, 4:53 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
TheRealWags wrote:
njroar wrote:
Correct. The problem is that many of those pushing the gay marriage bills, are also pushing laws to FORCE churches to perform gay marriages.

To be honest, I think that's the first I've heard of that and IF true, I would not support that. Goes back to separation of Church and State IMO. Which begs the question, could the Govt's attempt to define 'marriage' be a violation of said separation???


There are cases in Texas where a photographer was sued for discriminating against a lesbian couple for refusing to photograph their "marriage" ceremony. Gay marriage isn't even allowed in Texas and they still won. Another one a Methodist church camp rented out their space for outdoor weddings and refused a gay couple access to rent for religious reasons. But because both of these situations were considered "businesses" they both lost. What is now happening is that churches can only allow "members" to use the spaces if they want to protect their access by beliefs. If they aren't they will have to start to or be open for s lawsuit.

I foresee that protection going away as well...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 28th, 2011, 5:01 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
It's only a matter of time before the left starts demanding the right to marry pets, farm animals, and sex robots. You think I'm joking? Just wait. Those people are never happy, so once they obtain one of their demands, they'll move on to something else.

_________________
Image


June 29th, 2011, 10:01 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
slybri19 wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the left starts demanding the right to marry pets, farm animals, and sex robots. You think I'm joking? Just wait. Those people are never happy, so once they obtain one of their demands, they'll move on to something else.

Um..er...WOW!!! :shock: Talk about your ultra-right wing talking points :rolleyes:
I'd expect you to be a little more original, guess I was wrong...

Also, you say you're Libertarian when it comes to social issues, well that doesn't sound very Libertarian to me........

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


June 29th, 2011, 10:18 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
I find it kinda funny that mention that, and only 32 states actually have laws against bestiality, 2 of them under different types of code. Only 16 have them as felonies, so the rest are misdemeanors. There are actually studies that have narrowed it down to bestiality being the rape and abuse of animals sexually, and zoophilia being the love with animals, which somehow ok's it... Its ridiculous.


June 29th, 2011, 10:20 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
TheRealWags wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the left starts demanding the right to marry pets, farm animals, and sex robots. You think I'm joking? Just wait. Those people are never happy, so once they obtain one of their demands, they'll move on to something else.

Um..er...WOW!!! :shock: Talk about your ultra-right wing talking points :rolleyes:
I'd expect you to be a little more original, guess I was wrong...

Also, you say you're Libertarian when it comes to social issues, well that doesn't sound very Libertarian to me........

Where did I say I was against gay marriage? That's right, I didn't. I'm not exactly for it, but I'm really not opposed to the idea either. If a state chooses to allow it, so be it.

You really think I'm joking about the farm animals and sex robots, huh? Get back to me in 10 years and we'll see who's laughing then, OK? I know how these morons think and I wouldn't put anything past them.

_________________
Image


June 29th, 2011, 10:44 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
slybri19 wrote:
Where did I say I was against gay marriage? That's right, I didn't. I'm not exactly for it, but I'm really not opposed to the idea either. If a state chooses to allow it, so be it.

My bad, I interpreted your snarky response (which has been echoed almost verbatim by the ultra-right-wing/religious "wackos". Sorry for the confusion/misinterpretation.

slybri19 wrote:
You really think I'm joking about the farm animals and sex robots, huh? Get back to me in 10 years and we'll see who's laughing then, OK? I know how these morons think and I wouldn't put anything past them.

Yes, I do think its quite a bit of a stretch to think that anyone is going to want to marry an animal any more than they do today.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


June 29th, 2011, 11:39 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Once something becomes more socially acceptable (or less socially repulsive) it tends to increase as more people come out. One could say the same for homosexuality 200 years ago... it was hardly a thing people saw or worried about often. If the society makes it more acceptable, people will come out of the woodwork.

I would say younger and younger age of consent is more likely though than animal or machine love.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 29th, 2011, 11:59 am
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Saw this on CNN.com today:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/my-take-bible-condemns-a-lot-so-why-focus-on-homosexuality/

Quote:
By Jonathan Dudley, Special to CNN

Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.

Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.

I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.”

Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.”

In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.

I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.

But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.

How does that sit with “family values” activism today?

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.

Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.

Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body” if it is “not yet endowed with senses.”

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.”

American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.

It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.

And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”

A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.

The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.”

The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.”

Indeed it is.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


June 29th, 2011, 3:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
1) unnatural in the greek are NOT the same word... so the essence of this whole article is based on not doing ones homework on the word itself.

but that is just being picky... in context it was REALLY matters:

2) The NT is based on the OT. The OT makes it clear that that homosexuality is a sin in Lev. The NT showed how Jesus now takes that punishement, but he didn't eliminate sin. The NT verse confirms that homosexuality was not just an OT decree for the Jews but a sin identififed for all.

This article does a shoddy job of really understanding things in context, which most articles on this do. They take no time to actually put it into context. Now, if your stance is that those two verses changed it is a different story... but the Bible says what is says and there is no proof it ever said anything else for those verses. Catholic church or no Catholic church.

On celebacy... Paul's word that being celebate is better regarding serving God is clearly true with what he faced furing his life. He was beaten, stonned, jailed, etc. No one should have to go through that with a spouse... it's hard. But the Bible is also clear that if you can't stay celebate than it is BETTER for your to marry then to sin.

This article makes a mockery of what the Bible actually says in context... they didn't take the time to dig deep, which is ironic because he claims to have gone to college for that...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 29th, 2011, 4:44 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
steensn wrote:
I.E. wrote:
Being married is a legal state that confers rights, and historically in some cases (e.g. common law marriage) hasn't even required a ceremony of any sort - religious, or not. Marriage is certainly not a religious term. It might be one that religions USE ... but in itself is not a religious term.


BS, it is a religious term that was adopted by a religious state that later broke off and created an open religion based state. At best you can claim that it has been so long that it's time to consider it not a religious thing anymore. You cannot contradict history, it is clear. This is at best for your point a situation where a term has drifted so far from it's original usage that it we should just note it as a change.

I feel this would be bad and set a terrible precident, but at least be honest about it.


Nope. You're not right in either the historical sense, or the etymological sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#H ... by_culture

http://www.myetymology.com/english/marriage.html

"Marriage" is not a religious term. The etymology doesn't have any roots in religion. And the institution itself not only predates modern religion, but the facts/traditions/laws surrounding it differ completely in different regions/cultures. It may have been co-opted by some religions ... but the genesis (sorry - couldn't help) of the word is not from religion... in spite of the spin I'm sure you've heard on the subject in "interested" circles.


June 29th, 2011, 4:49 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
steensn wrote:
1) unnatural in the greek are NOT the same word... so the essence of this whole article is based on not doing ones homework on the word itself.

but that is just being picky... in context it was REALLY matters:

2) The NT is based on the OT. The OT makes it clear that that homosexuality is a sin in Lev. The NT showed how Jesus now takes that punishement, but he didn't eliminate sin. The NT verse confirms that homosexuality was not just an OT decree for the Jews but a sin identififed for all.

This article does a shoddy job of really understanding things in context, which most articles on this do. They take no time to actually put it into context. Now, if your stance is that those two verses changed it is a different story... but the Bible says what is says and there is no proof it ever said anything else for those verses. Catholic church or no Catholic church.

On celebacy... Paul's word that being celebate is better regarding serving God is clearly true with what he faced furing his life. He was beaten, stonned, jailed, etc. No one should have to go through that with a spouse... it's hard. But the Bible is also clear that if you can't stay celebate than it is BETTER for your to marry then to sin.

This article makes a mockery of what the Bible actually says in context... they didn't take the time to dig deep, which is ironic because he claims to have gone to college for that...


I didn't want for the article's multi-themed approach to derail the specific discussion on marriage and marriage equality. I think the overarching point is that A) the Bible forbids a lot of stuff and B) most people pick and choose the parts they want to obey, ignoring the rest. Point A is not even remotely arguable. Point B is more speculative but the evidence presented here is compelling.

With that said, I have two questions, just for clarification:
1. Greek? What do you mean?
2. Can you can contextualize the argument for the author? I'm interested in the observation that the author doesn't provide context but don't understand what you mean by that.

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


June 29th, 2011, 5:40 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.