The first gay president

[Gfted1]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian.

 

Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know.

 

C'mon, try a little harder. Since the very book their beliefs are founded on openly calls homosexuals sinners, one would expect these sinners to not feel so good about that and not want to be associated with an organization that finds them to be unequal to others.

[Hurlshort]

^ A bit of both I guess. If you take the position that marriage is existentially a union between a man and a woman then both come into play. Which I do. I am uncomfortable with forcing people with sincerely-held religious views to accommodate something that is already more than adequately covered by civil ceremonies. If people want to call that 'marriage' then the sky won't fall in.

 

If I am seriously religious and married to a woman, how does gay marriage force me to do anything? It doesn't affect my beliefs at all, it doesn't lessen my personal experience in my wedded bliss. At least it shouldn't. As I said, if you are concerned about marriage as a religious institution being attacked, then you should be going after the atheists and the folks eloping in Vegas, not just gay couples.

[HoonDing]

The Word of God is indeed pretty clear on marriage:

 

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

[Monte Carlo]

^ A bit of both I guess. If you take the position that marriage is existentially a union between a man and a woman then both come into play. Which I do. I am uncomfortable with forcing people with sincerely-held religious views to accommodate something that is already more than adequately covered by civil ceremonies. If people want to call that 'marriage' then the sky won't fall in.

 

If I am seriously religious and married to a woman, how does gay marriage force me to do anything? It doesn't affect my beliefs at all, it doesn't lessen my personal experience in my wedded bliss. At least it shouldn't. As I said, if you are concerned about marriage as a religious institution being attacked, then you should be going after the atheists and the folks eloping in Vegas, not just gay couples.

 

C'mon Hurlie, can you seriously not see how the entire concept is undermined by allowing same-sex couples to get married? I used the word existential for a reason.

[C2B]

C'mon, try a little harder. Since the very book their beliefs are founded on openly calls homosexuals sinners, one would expect these sinners to not feel so good about that and not want to be associated with an organization that finds them to be unequal to others.

 

.....

 

And said book challenges its own previous concepts several times and whos second part consists of a guy doing mostly just that (though not the subject matter, still)

 

Please, please don't come with the black and white card. It's stupid, it's ignorrant. Not everyone has to follow something exactly or interpret something exactly like others do to still be a part of it.

 

Most people despise what the church did during several part of the last millenia within the church too. Are their opinions or their following of said belief immediatly invalidated because of it?

Edited May 15, 2012 by C2B

[Hurlshort]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian.

 

Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know.

 

C'mon, try a little harder. Since the very book their beliefs are founded on openly calls homosexuals sinners, one would expect these sinners to not feel so good about that and not want to be associated with an organization that finds them to be unequal to others.

 

You might be surprised to know the bible is anything but clear when it comes to matters of homosexuality. Here is an interesting wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

 

The point being that the bible is fairly vague on the matter. It is much more condemning of those who worship money, for example. Not to mention their is a laundry list of stuff the Old Testament rails against that has become accepted by modern society. A literal interpretation of the bible is not something that any major church goes by today.

[Gfted1]

And said book challenges its own previous concepts several times and whos second part consists of a guy doing mostly just that.

 

Please, please don't come with the black and white card. It's stupid, it's ignorrant. Not everyone has to follow something exactly or interpret something exactly like others do to still be a part of it.

 

Most people despise what the church did during several part of the last millenia within the church too. Are their opinions or their following of said belief immediatly invalidated because of it?

 

You might be surprised to know the bible is anything but clear when it comes to matters of homosexuality. Here is an interesting wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia....e_New_Testament

 

The point being that the bible is fairly vague on the matter. It is much more condemning of those who worship money, for example. Not to mention their is a laundry list of stuff the Old Testament rails against that has become accepted by modern society. A literal interpretation of the bible is not something that any major church goes by today.

 

You guys are barking up the wrong tree here. I personally do not believe in religon (it should be outlawed) and I dont care who sticks which sexual organ where (as long as everyone is consenting). I just dont understand why homosexuals would want to be part of a group that discriminates against them. Might as well be an African American trying to join the KKK. Whats the point? Go get a civil union and everyone goes home happy.

[Hurlshort]

^ A bit of both I guess. If you take the position that marriage is existentially a union between a man and a woman then both come into play. Which I do. I am uncomfortable with forcing people with sincerely-held religious views to accommodate something that is already more than adequately covered by civil ceremonies. If people want to call that 'marriage' then the sky won't fall in.

 

If I am seriously religious and married to a woman, how does gay marriage force me to do anything? It doesn't affect my beliefs at all, it doesn't lessen my personal experience in my wedded bliss. At least it shouldn't. As I said, if you are concerned about marriage as a religious institution being attacked, then you should be going after the atheists and the folks eloping in Vegas, not just gay couples.

 

C'mon Hurlie, can you seriously not see how the entire concept is undermined by allowing same-sex couples to get married? I used the word existential for a reason.

 

As someone who is utterly devoted to my wife I fail to see how anyone else's marriage affects me at all. It is between me, my wife, my children, and God. No one else matters in that equation. That's the way it should be.

 

If I did let this stuff affect me, the problem is I know a lot of man-woman couples that are terrible. You see it on TV regularly, it seems to be a requirement in order to get a reality show. Those folks would seem to do a lot more to undermine marriage than the gay couples I know.

[Calax]

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

 

And with that we know your teacher has never been married.

 

Seriously, I dont know the numbers but I would be shocked if a few thousand dollars in Power of Attorney fees came anywhere near the cost of a wedding.

Oh she's married, but she was always referring to her husband as her "partner" and thus when she was trying to get insurance she'd have to pay an extra fee because everyone assumed that she was in a civil union/gay relationship.

[Tale]

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

 

And with that we know your teacher has never been married.

 

Seriously, I dont know the numbers but I would be shocked if a few thousand dollars in Power of Attorney fees came anywhere near the cost of a wedding.

What does that have to do with it? A massive wedding isn't a requirement for marriage. It's mostly social. Civil unions would want them just teh same.

[Gfted1]

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

 

And with that we know your teacher has never been married.

 

Seriously, I dont know the numbers but I would be shocked if a few thousand dollars in Power of Attorney fees came anywhere near the cost of a wedding.

What does that have to do with it? A massive wedding isn't a requirement for marriage. It's mostly social. Civil unions would want them just teh same.

 

Um, I was directly comparing the cost of a wedding to the cost of a civil union. I thought that was obvious from my post since thats the part I quoted and highlighted. Perhaps everyone can pump the brakes on this hyperbole train before the whole thread goes down the tubes?

[Tale]

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

 

And with that we know your teacher has never been married.

 

Seriously, I dont know the numbers but I would be shocked if a few thousand dollars in Power of Attorney fees came anywhere near the cost of a wedding.

What does that have to do with it? A massive wedding isn't a requirement for marriage. It's mostly social. Civil unions would want them just teh same.

 

Um, I was directly comparing the cost of a wedding to the cost of a civil union. I thought that was obvious from my post since thats the part I quoted and highlighted. Perhaps everyone can pump the brakes on this hyperbole train before the whole thread goes down the tubes?

You highlighted "being married." What you quoted doesn't mention wedding at all.

[Monte Carlo]

So, just to chuck some Willie Peter into the room, where are we all on the whole 'having kids too' thing?

[C2B]

I just dont understand why homosexuals would want to be part of a group that discriminates against them. Might as well be an African American trying to join the KKK. Whats the point? Go get a civil union and everyone goes home happy.

 

Because its not about joining a "group" as you call it. It's about having a belief and expressing it. Marriage doesn't "belong" to the people that oppose them.

 

And theres no way of knowing how long it will actually still be discriminating against them. Who knows? The world moves and thanks to such strides stuff changes.

 

The church was a LOT different already.

Edited May 15, 2012 by C2B

[Gfted1]

Huh, I never knew that was a nick for White Phosphorous. I assume you mean homosexuals adopting children? I dont know where I stand on that. Im sure they are just as good (or bad) as heterosexual parents but I do worry a bit about the children and "monkey see, monkey do".

[Monte Carlo]

Huh, I never knew that was a nick for White Phosphorous.

 

I heard it from an American. In the UK phonetic alphabet we'd call it Whisky Papa.

[Hurlshort]

Huh, I never knew that was a nick for White Phosphorous. I assume you mean homosexuals adopting children? I dont know where I stand on that. Im sure they are just as good (or bad) as heterosexual parents but I do worry a bit about the children and "monkey see, monkey do".

 

Well there is already plenty of data to suggest that gay parents do not result in tons of gay children.

 

I'm actually surprised to hear you say that at all. Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

 

I've just never understood that position. Why would you choose that, given the discrimination that will come with it? I know I've never had to convince myself I am attracted to women, it is completely natural. It takes no effort, if anything he effort lies in not staring at every pair of boobies I come in contact with. Given that, it is easy for me to believe that someone who is not attracted to the opposite sex is not making a conscious choice.

[Gfted1]

Do I think its a choice? Somewhat, how else would you explain bisexuality? I think perhaps people are predisposed to certain biological outcomes but I dont think its as simple as they came out of the womb gay. WRT self inflicted discrimination, why does anyone do anything? Why do goths and emo's purposely dress in a manner that will most likely draw a negative reaction? Maybe they feel the pluses outweigh the minuses? I dunno, I cant speak for them.

 

I dont think gay parents automatically makes gay children but as a father yourself you know that kids are stupid. They will believe every word out of your mouth and will do anything you tell them to do. Furthermore, IMO, I dont feel that a child under 8 (or so) even has a clue what sexuality is. Combine the two factors and I feel you create an environment that could possibly nudge a child in a certain direction. You know the saying, we're all products of our environment.

[Walsingham]

I can see gay parents having pretend gay children. But is that really (bedrock reality) really worse than straight parents having pretend straight kids?

 

Overall, gayness does bother me. I think it's natural to be bothered by anything you don't quite understand. But I get past it by just focussing on more important things like whether a person is helpful and trustworthy, and has guts. In particular one thing you can say for gay people is that they have had to make at least one really brave move in their lives. Which is more than you can say for a lot of 'normals' of any description.

[Gorgon]

Why should it matter if it was a choice. Is it more noble if it was thrust upon you and you had to cope as best you could. Is it that if it were a choice that it would be something you could reverse. It's probably a little bit of nature to a little bit of nurture, the exact formula being unquantifiable and also largely irreversible. People don't generally change, and even less so after a formation of sexual identity.

 

 

As long as you can trump the basic human group dynamic of pushing away those that are 'different' intellectually, you're good.

[Humodour]

Man, I hate reading threads like this. You get some really warped and twisted minds trying to argue against equal rights for all. It's sickening.

 

And Monte Carlo, your "marriage is a religious thing" argument is BULLDUNG. Marriage is a custom thousands of years old which Christianity has ZERO claim to inventing and which absolutely does not require a) a religion, b) monogamy, or c) heterosexuality. Further, we all live in SECULAR states, not Christian states.

 

Moreover, regulation of marriage should not be the role of the state to begin with. All you "small government" conservatives are flat-out hypocrites here! But since marriage does fall under the jurisdiction of the state, which, again, is smegging stupid, then that state regulation of marriage damn well needs to be made egalitarian because the state is involving itself.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Krezack

[Volourn]

I rememebr when Clinton was referred to as the First black president. This is just as ridiculous. Just ebcause you support a group's right doesn't make you a member of said group. I support equal rights for women, blacks, and gays and I'm not a woman, black, or gay.

 

 

WTF!?!

[Hurlshort]

I feel like Volourn and Oner kind of miss the point of the thread.

[Orogun01]

I rememebr when Clinton was referred to as the First black president. This is just as ridiculous. Just ebcause you support a group's right doesn't make you a member of said group. I support equal rights for women, blacks, and gays and I'm not a woman, black, or gay.

 

 

WTF!?!

No it only means that you like gay black women.

[Hurlshort]

I rememebr when Clinton was referred to as the First black president. This is just as ridiculous. Just ebcause you support a group's right doesn't make you a member of said group. I support equal rights for women, blacks, and gays and I'm not a woman, black, or gay.

 

 

WTF!?!

No it only means that you like gay black women.

 

Not only that, he is their champion!