View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 24th, 2014, 9:50 am



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

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
I.E. wrote:
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.


Again, your etymology only solidifies my point. It is based off languages and cultures that REVOLVED around Christianity:

"The earliest known usage of marriage in English dates from the 13th century."

No usage of the term marriage anything BUT direct connection to religion. I don't care if the Greek men had sex and married little boys and called it the same thing as their relationship with a women... they didn't speak English and didn't use the word marriage.

Simply put, to at this point in time associate what Greeks did and called a "union" of some sorts and make the correlation to what people did in the 1300's is a complete and utter lack of historical context. If the people from the 1300's (when it first came about) were asked what marraige was they would direct it to the Bible. They were Christians they would have it no other way. Reality doesn't fit... we translate the words to mean the same thing then say here is proof they are the same thing. It's circular logic.

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


June 29th, 2011, 6:22 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
mwill2 wrote:
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.


In general, the point made by the author you note in your first paragraph is correct, that was the intent. But, one then assumes that how people come to their decisions is more important than the truth. I don't care if most people flip the Bible open, point to a verse, and declare that is the only truth in the Bible. Just because a lot or most poeple do it means absolutaly nothing. What matters is the truth... that is it. It is a plea to masses which is meaningless. It is terrible and completely false logic.

1&2) The books you refer to are written in Greek and then are translated into the language you speak so you can understand it. For English, compared to Greek, we don't have 1 to 1 translations of words. In some cases we have one word for many Greek words (like 'love,' we have one word that describes many types of 'love' and the Greeks had many different words for different types of love). In this case the Greek word translated to unnatural in the one verse is not the same Greek word translated in the other one. Essentially, 'unnatural' is the right word for both but there is greater meaning behind it IF you decide to be picky like the author is being regarding word usage. Typically, reading the words in context it is clear what the author is talking about, and in this case it is clear. The issue is the author of the article decided to eliminate context to make a point, which means you miss the meaning.

Example

I can say: "Johnny said that you are a fat moron."

You can take what I said and quote me as saying "You are a fat moron." and your wuote would be correct. But someone reading your quote and my real quote in context would get significantly different meanings from it. Even if I did say "You are a fat moron," I didn't mean you ARE a fat moron, I was quoting someone else.

This is an exaggeration to make a point, but it gets the idea across. When the author quotes one verse and not the whole chapter or even the whole book you lose the context of the message that was found in. That means you get the wrong meaning as well. The author does a poor job at comparing the two verses because all they look at is the word unnatural and then state the majority stance of the church on the two subjects. But what the author fails to do is actually give the REASON why the church has two different viewpoints with is based on context. He essentailly created a strawman argument...

So to sum it up:

If the author is going to compare two stances around the word unnatural and it's uses, he has to argue why the two different stances are the way they are... he can't just say "Well you come to two different conclusions when he used unnatural, so that shows that 'unnatural' isn't the reason homosexuality is wrong." He is right actually, it isn't the reason... but he opens that confusion up to make a point instead of going to the next logical step and ask/answer "maybe that means the viewpoints aren't baed solely on the term 'unnatural'." Instead, the author creates a sense of logical fallacy through his strawman to then further an agenda that maybe we don't really know what the Bible says.

It poor logic and shows a study wasn't done to get to that conslusion but rather a conclusion was made adn evidence to support it was created.

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


June 29th, 2011, 6:39 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
steensn wrote:
I.E. wrote:
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.


Again, your etymology only solidifies my point. It is based off languages and cultures that REVOLVED around Christianity:

"The earliest known usage of marriage in English dates from the 13th century."

No usage of the term marriage anything BUT direct connection to religion. I don't care if the Greek men had sex and married little boys and called it the same thing as their relationship with a women... they didn't speak English and didn't use the word marriage.

Simply put, to at this point in time associate what Greeks did and called a "union" of some sorts and make the correlation to what people did in the 1300's is a complete and utter lack of historical context. If the people from the 1300's (when it first came about) were asked what marraige was they would direct it to the Bible. They were Christians they would have it no other way. Reality doesn't fit... we translate the words to mean the same thing then say here is proof they are the same thing. It's circular logic.


Your're reading the information incorrectly. The point is, the institution AND the roots existed long before the emergence of the word. That is undeniable.

There is an article on Huffpost today that explains that even though the Christian church had co-opted "marriage" (the institution and the word) early-on, reformists (e.g. Martin Luther) firmly believed that marriage was not the domain of the church.


June 30th, 2011, 12:05 pm
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1166
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Regardless of the history of the term, it's clear to me that in modern society the term marriage in modern society applies equally to religious marriage as it does civil. I don't think either has a monopoly on the word.

As such, I think the appropriate approach is for civil marriages to: (a) continue to be called marriage; (b) to be open to same sex couples; and (c) to confer the same (civil) rights on same sex couples as it does on opposite sex couples.

For religious marriage, I think that should (a) be regulated as the religious institution sees fit; (b) should confer no additional civil rights on its own; (c) should be able to occur at the same time and in the same ceremony as a civil marriage (so that a couple opting to have a religious marriage can wrap up a civil marriage in the same ceremony and therefore gain the civil rights associated with a civil marriage).

If any regligious institution finds itself so offended by the thought of civil marriage being extended to same sex couples, they are welcome to change the name of their version of marriage to union if they wish.


June 30th, 2011, 1:05 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
UK Lion wrote:
Regardless of the history of the term, it's clear to me that in modern society the term marriage in modern society applies equally to religious marriage as it does civil. I don't think either has a monopoly on the word.

As such, I think the appropriate approach is for civil marriages to: (a) continue to be called marriage; (b) to be open to same sex couples; and (c) to confer the same (civil) rights on same sex couples as it does on opposite sex couples.

For religious marriage, I think that should (a) be regulated as the religious institution sees fit; (b) should confer no additional civil rights on its own; (c) should be able to occur at the same time and in the same ceremony as a civil marriage (so that a couple opting to have a religious marriage can wrap up a civil marriage in the same ceremony and therefore gain the civil rights associated with a civil marriage).

If any regligious institution finds itself so offended by the thought of civil marriage being extended to same sex couples, they are welcome to change the name of their version of marriage to union if they wish.


We can agree to disagree on the last post of yours... I consider the fact the institution existed, a language was formed, and it was clear the institution defined it as the sign it is clearly 100% owned.

But at least this last post is the critical part that makes your opinion consistent... it is what it is now. I may disagree... but I will have no beef if at minimum churches and religious orginizations that offer services are not put through the ringer to go against their religious stance because we want to call them a "business." If a photographer wants to say no to a wedding because they are against gay marriage, if they still have that right the end goal for me is the same.

If this was about rights, the homosexual community would be ok with what they had, civil unions... like in NY. They fought for more because the "name" mattered. That is where my beef is, being honest.

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


June 30th, 2011, 2:49 pm
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1166
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
The name does matter - clearly it does to you, you wish to claim it as "owned" by religion. Equally, it matters to the non-religious.

I had a 100% non-religious, entirely civil, marriage ceremony. I am married to my wife. I enjoyed being able to invite people to my marriage ceremony. I like being able to tell people I am married to my wife. Words matter: the word marriage is important to me, entirely out of a religious context.

Equally, the word marriage is important to homosexuals who want to get married (unionised? ;) ). I don't see why that should be a problem.


June 30th, 2011, 3:41 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Then let's remove it from gov't and have everyone call it what they want! ;)

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


June 30th, 2011, 4:01 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
I've got to tell a story about the hypocrisy and ignorance of libtards. Since Big Brother (My Summer Guilty Pleasure) has started, I post at a board about the show that has quite a few gay members. Anyways, Jeff (one of the houseguests) made a comment on the live feeds that it was wrong to have a gay character in a children's movie. This set the cocksuckers and fudgepackers off. One of them even called him a "retard". Needless to say, this set me off and I went after that freak of nature about his/her/its hyprocrisy. In their eyes, it's wrong to talk negatively about homos, but OK to bash the mentally challenged. This conversation (profanity laced tirade actually) lasted for three hours. In the end, as I feared, there is no reasoning with these people. Therefore, I take back everything I ever said about gay rights and will oppose their agenda to the bitter end. I'm also gonna become pro-life just to piss those idiots off. From now on, I will oppose everything that the libtards are for. Hell, I might even begin quoting the Bible to them to get under their skin even further.

Can any of you Christians supply me with Bible quotes condemning homosexuality? I'd like to use them in the very near future. I'm evil like that. :twisted:

_________________
Image


July 13th, 2011, 8:27 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
HAHA... you are one of a kind Sly...

Yes, they are hypocritical just like the rest of us, including you. They are no more at fault for what they did in this situation than many of us in our own hypocrisy.

I can easily back up their sin with Biblical text on hypocrisy, but by doing so shine a light on myself and everyone else. This doesn't help your case if we are all hypocritical in different topics. As for homosexuality, when you say "I'm applying the verse as I think it reads" you are capable of making up whatever you want regarding the Bible. Even though the OT clearly defines homosexuality as clearly wrong:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

And then confirmed again in the NT:

“ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1: 26-27

Points to a revelation from God clearly condemning homosexuality the same way he reaffirms that lying, gossiping, cheating, stealing, idolatry, anger, lust, murder, etc. are all sins from the beginning and the homosexuality reference in the OT was not just part of the Jewish law but for all mankind (as opposed to things like being unclean after a menstruating). To take anything other than the clear meaning above requires one to adjust the meaning with their own "interpretation" or in better terms.. adjust it to what they want it to say.

They are going to write off all of this based on their "interpretation" of scripture, which is just a molding of the meaning to their own beliefs they had already. They can challenge it, but the main point is that it isn't Biblical.

I would prefer though that you didn't jump on them with verses as you then will look to represent Christians and I can guess already that you have not set a good relationship up with them where they are willing to even listen to you. I'd suggest not trying to use the Bible for your tirade.

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


July 13th, 2011, 9:53 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
Thanks, steensn. I knew I could count on you. :D

Keep in mind though that the board I'm talking about has no rules, so it can get kinda crazy. For instance, after the homo wished me to die in a fire, I told it to suck on a cock until it chokes to death. :lol:

Adding Bible verses to the equation will only make it more fun. :D

_________________
Image


July 13th, 2011, 10:11 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
I still request you don't taint the Bible with your nonsense. The only reason I spelled it out is so you at least had the truth and not some crazy interpretation off the internet (ironic huh...). I assumed if you got no response that you would look up what you could find somewhere else.

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


July 13th, 2011, 10:55 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3824
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
thread address please? I could use a good laugh!

And sly...word of warning.....dont go to war with the many because of a few. dont go hating on all gay rights just cuz a few mouthbreathers have no sense whatsoever. Hate the person not the cause....or the player not the game :wink:

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


July 13th, 2011, 11:46 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
HALLELUJAH! PRAISE THE LORD!!! Am I glad I stopped by this thread.

Can any of you Christians supply me with Bible quotes condemning homosexuality?

I just don't know what to say....... Yeah I do,

Romans 1:20 - 27, "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


I jsuggest wearing a helmet, flak vest, chaps :P, thong :P, and earplugs, carrying a gallon of holy water, and maybe a Catholic Crucifix or two after posting this one!

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


Last edited by WarEr4Christ on July 14th, 2011, 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.



July 14th, 2011, 7:47 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Actually Sly, this applies to you and Pablo in some of your thinking as well, but that's for another thread, but pay attention to verse 20.

But I'd like to be a fly on the wall of that chat room, when that grenade goes off. Those turd chasers are going break out in a huge meltdown.

Here's a logical question to ask: If being "gay" is natural, or a natural for them in their sexuality, then why do they dress in drag to appear as the "other sex" that is the true normal way? It is hypocritical to claim or act in a gay lifestyle, yet in order to attract or express their "homosexuality" they dress in the garb of the opposite sex. The same is true for the lesbians who dress manish to illustrate their preference.

In the end, it boils down to sin! We're not born gay, we're born with a sensitivity to sin, and many times it's in a particular area. Some rebellion, some anger, some lust, some gluttony and so on. It is our own sinful nature exposed and sometime highlighted in a particular area.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


July 14th, 2011, 7:53 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: NY passes marriage equality
Cali is now forcing schools to teach gay history:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15gay.html

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


July 14th, 2011, 11:29 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: No registered users and 5 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.