Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ban marriage!Follow

#27 Mar 25 2004 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Quote:
you are free to and have the right to marry anyone that you desire so long as it is a person of the opposite sex

That is discrimination. Because you happen to condone the discrimination doesn't change the nature of it.


so its also discrimination if we refuse to allow a known terrorist or serial rapist into our country? after all, that lifestyle is just their choice regardless of how it impacts those around them. who cares if its the law right? its their choice.
#28 Mar 25 2004 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
so its also discrimination if we refuse to allow a known terrorist or serial rapist into our country? after all, that lifestyle is just their choice regardless of how it impacts those around them. who cares if its the law right? its their choice.


Odd that you can refer to someone else as clueless in one thread and then wipe your *** with a keyboard and post it in another. The glaring inadequacy in your analogy is that one group deals with a consentual act and the other with acts that blatantly deprive others of liberty.
#29 Mar 25 2004 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
actually I was not making the analogy in reference to the ACT itself as much as I was in relation to the defiance of a law regardless of what the law states for the simple reason that the law does not support personal preference. then stating its discrimination to justify it.

so you misunderstood my analogy i guess.
#30 Mar 25 2004 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
There is no "vast majority" on either side of this issue.


http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1567690.html

Quote:
NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters
Evenly Split Over Civil Unions, 56 Percent Oppose Gay Marriage

The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it.


This is one source for my information uhm can you show me yours to back up your statement below?

Quote:
Many people (yes, heterosexuals too) recognize that gays getting married takes nothing away from them and to continue to deny them their equal right to marry is discriminatory and wrong.


Gays are not being discriminated against. Once again they have the same rights that heterosexuals do so long as they abide by the laws of the state that they are in. Remember the point of this thread was a county in Oregon revoking the RIGHTS of heterosexuals to marry because homosexuals can not marry. Two wrongs do not make a right and mass punishment is definetly not the answer. I would be wanting people fired or recalled because of the actions taken in that county. We have already bashed the differences between our ideology about homosexuality, now let's discuss the constitutionality of local county officials arbitrarily revoking the rights of it's citizens.
#31 Mar 25 2004 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
so you misunderstood my analogy i guess.

Or, and I am going out on a limb here, your analogy was so blatantly flawed that had I not misunderstood it you would have accomplished something Tacosid could not.

Your basic analogy stated if gays could marry, terrorists and serial rapists should be allowed to freely emigrate here. How does your colon smell? Or has your nose become desensitized after spending so much time with your head up your ***?
#32 Mar 25 2004 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
no YOUR making the association between different parts of the analogy...thats not my fault. the beautiful thing about an anology is that all aspects of it don't have to be identical...that would make it identical and not an analogy. to support, i'll cut and paste a couple definitions meriam-webster has for the word analogy:

Quote:
resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

and

correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY


my analogy is not flawed, your definition of analogy is.

Edited, Thu Mar 25 16:19:08 2004 by Empyre
#33 Mar 25 2004 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Empyre,

If in fact you are saying you didn't mean to sound like a homophobe, next time try to keep your analogy within the same ball park as the subject. Perhaps you could have likened letting Gays marry to Polygamy? Something that seems to be some peoples personal choice, isn't harming anybody, and is outlawed here.

Just sayin' is all.

Carry on.
#34 Mar 25 2004 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
**
794 posts
Empyre that's a load of BS, and the stupidest argument I've heard. I don't care what webster says, but you can't compare something like that. Just because they both have to do with laws doesn't mean anything. One DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, and the other has to do with terrorists who are threats to other people.
#35 Mar 25 2004 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
they both relate to laws and breaking them under your own terms. your picking the only contrasting part of the analogy and exploiting it as the main point...which was clearly what I was NOT shooting for. I don't have to keep it in the ballpark, because the reference was used as a comparison based on a resemblance. a resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. which is what an analogy is whether any of you like it or not.

now granted, there was an element of sarcasm defined by the large area of contrast between the two particulars...but that sarcasm was intended to also illustrate the sarcasm I had in thinking it was just as elementary to think it was discriminating to rapists and terrorists as it was to say we were discriminating against gays by not letting them marry within the institution the law clearly defines. the only difference here is you all are sympathetic to gays and not rapists or terrorists. thats not my problem, and I could agree or not...but your selective sympathies do not make my analogy or argument any more invalid...they emphasize it more than anything else.

and sstaurus...it doesnt matter what you care about..i didnt define the stupid word, i just used what it defines. get pissed all you want, but its "legal" to use and I used it.

man...if you can't find one thing to b|tch about, you'll find another or make one up.

Edited, Thu Mar 25 22:11:00 2004 by Empyre
#36 Mar 26 2004 at 1:44 AM Rating: Default
O,o

looks like we have a winner here boys...

Empyre -jackass of the year..
#37 Mar 26 2004 at 1:58 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
they both relate to laws and breaking them under your own terms.
Ummm so people want to be raped now do they, geeze i didn't know that.

the reason it is a bad annology is because in one ALL people involved are consentual and ALL people involved are happy with the results in the other ONE person is and the VICTIM is not.

i don't think we will be hearing about the victims of a gay marriage any time soon.
Quote:
Political Correctness has crossed a line where every thing needs to be defined down to a knats *** in detail and proper wording so that people who fit outside what is considered "normal" will understand they do not conform to what a vast majority of society accepts as normal and is willing to condone.
At some point in our collective history slavery was considerd normal too. While i don't put Gay marriage and slavery on the same level it does leave hole in you argument that normal should be the only thing that is catered for.
#38 Mar 26 2004 at 2:06 AM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Quote:
Empyre -jackass of the year..


she just keeps going regardless and oblivious doesn't she?

Quote:
Ummm so people want to be raped now do they, geeze i didn't know that.


thats nowhere near what I said..c'mon now, your smarter than that.

Quote:
the reason it is a bad annology is because in one ALL people involved are consentual and ALL people involved are happy with the results in the other ONE person is and the VICTIM is not.


once again...go back and read the definition of analogy. then read the spelled out intentions of my post. its all there and you've proved a couple times you can think...use it.

Quote:
i don't think we will be hearing about the victims of a gay marriage any time soon.


actually I hear from them every freaking day. think about it.
#39 Mar 26 2004 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
(By Stok)
Gays are not being discriminated against.


WTF!? Really!? I must have missed that memo somewhere. Last time I checked, millions of GBLT's everywhere were scared to be completely out. (For the clueless: GBLT = Gay, Bi, Lesbian, Transgender)


Quote:
(by Stok)
Once again they have the same rights that heterosexuals do so long as they abide by the laws of the state that they are in.


again...Really!? Then why are we fighting for civil rights? Why are we fighting for our RIGHT to marry? Did you know in virtually every state of this country Sodomy, Oral sex, and generally anything considered an "unnatural" sex act (IOW: anything that's not the Missionary position) is illegal? Think about that next time you're getting head from some ditzy chick.

Quote:
(by Stok)
Remember the point of this thread was a county in Oregon revoking the RIGHTS of heterosexuals to marry because homosexuals can not marry.


Apparently you have bad reading comprehension. It's ok, here's an excerpt for the article:

Quote:
a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.


Oooh, and here is the kicker...they even EXPLAIN why they did it:

Quote:
"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."


"Treat everyone...equally" WHAT A F*CKING CONCEPT!!!!
As it has been proven before, you want the world to notice something, give them something to notice. This is truly a remarkable thing they have done. Unfortunately, it's just going to get swept under the rug.

Edited, Fri Mar 26 06:21:16 2004 by psychojester
#40 Mar 26 2004 at 6:02 AM Rating: Decent
Well if you want to get technical about it. There is NO right to marry in the federal laws. The federal law recognizes the rights given by the state and local government to allow marriages. So if the local government of that Oregon town takes the right to marry from the heterosexuals then they have the right to do so as they are the lawmaking body with the jurisdiction to do so. Only the state can over rule them.
#41 Mar 26 2004 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
Here's an idea. I think the State should get out of the business of marrying people. Leave that to the church/religious sector. The state should issue legal civil unions to everyone. It seems to me that the issue is based purely on the word "marriage" at least thats what alot of the people on the side against gay marriage are saying. Take that off the table and what arguement do they have other than "well I just dont like homosexuals" which is a tough arguement to back. Marriage is a religious issue. The seperation of church and state should preclude the state from issueing "marriage" licenses anyway. The state should treat everyone the same and this is a way to do that. Let the church (whichever you prescribe to) figure out who it will and wont marry. I cant believe that I am the first person to think of this.........
As far as the trend of local officals who seem to think it is their job decide which laws they have to uphold and which they dont, they are clearly wrong. Simply put that's not their job. If I decide that I dont like the seatbelt law. That it is a facist law that takes away my right to smash my forehead on the windshield during a crash. Clearly I am not affecting anyone but me by this stance. Does that mean that I will not receive a ticket if I am pulled over by a police officer? No. People who are elected to a position of leadership who are bound by oath to uphold the law must do so. To do otherwise undermines the system. No matter how unjust/wrong they think the law is they were elected by the people of that area/state/nation to uphold the law. The people elected seperate people to make the laws. Clearly there is a movement to change the law. Great. This movement must work within the system to change the law.
#42 Mar 26 2004 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Here's an idea. I think the State should get out of the business of marrying people.Leave that to the church/religious sector.
Umm why? i am married and i haven't been ina church since i was 6.
Quote:
The state should issue legal civil unions to everyone. It seems to me that the issue is based purely on the word "marriage"
So you think that my marriage is not valid because i did it at a civil ceremony?
Quote:
Marriage is a religious issue.
Not for me i am married and not religious.

And for gods sake learn the meaning of paragraphs child!
#43 Mar 26 2004 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
Marriage is a religious issue


We have had this argument. Why is the word marriage a religious issue? Marriage is synonymous with the word "union". Look it up in a dictionary.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b) The state of being married; wedlock.
c) A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Here is what the bible says about marriage:

Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate
By Vaughn Roste
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.

Quote:
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.

So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.

All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.

12 Biblical Principles of Marriage


1) Marriage consists of one man and one or more women

(Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

2) Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have
(Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

3) A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife

(Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

4)If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned
(Deut 22:13-21).

5)A rapist must marry his victim
(Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

6)If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
(Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

7)Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

8)Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

9)The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work
(Gen 29:14-30).

10)Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

11) Divorce is forbidden
(Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

12)Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin
(Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one (with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner)!

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."

So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.

Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?

From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.

Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.

To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.

While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.
#44 Mar 26 2004 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Quote:
Perhaps you could have likened letting Gays marry to Polygamy? Something that seems to be some peoples personal choice, isn't harming anybody, and is outlawed here.
Smiley: glare
#45 Mar 26 2004 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Flea wrote:
Quote:"Skeeter" Perhaps you could have likened letting Gays marry to Polygamy? Something that seems to be some peoples personal choice, isn't harming anybody, and is outlawed here.

Smiley: glare


What? Why the glare? It's better than comparing it to terrorism and rape.
#46 Mar 27 2004 at 12:34 AM Rating: Default
/em reading wide-eyed and slack-jawed

Wow, Patrician is tha man!
#47 Mar 27 2004 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Did you know in virtually every state of this country Sodomy, Oral sex, and generally anything considered an "unnatural" sex act (IOW: anything that's not the Missionary position) is illegal?
If by "virtually", you mean "none".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Mar 27 2004 at 1:04 AM Rating: Good
Geez Joph, always nick-picking with things such as facts.

Smiley: rolleyes



Smiley: laugh
#49 Mar 27 2004 at 1:47 AM Rating: Default
Joph, I'm just going by the fact that such laws are still on the books. Take the (not-so) great state of South Carolina, where it is still legal to beat your wife on the courthouse steps on sunday. Or where it is illegal for men to have back pockets on their pants (that one came from the prohibition days).

Granted...certain laws are obviously no longer enforced, but they are still laws.
#50 Mar 27 2004 at 2:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"...where (SC) it is still legal to beat your wife on the courthouse steps on Sunday..." -Psycho

Uhhh, yeah, and your point is...? Every wife needs a little "motivation" every now and then. Particularly on Sunday.

Totem

#51 Mar 27 2004 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And in Chicago, it's illegal to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck!

If a law is unenforcable and unconstitutional, then it is not illegal to engage in those acts. Perhaps some of the laws are still "on the books" but, without being enforcable or people being arrested for them, they have as much clout as laws mandating a two penny fine for spitting on a Sunday.

I'm all for equal rights for homosexuals but, as it is, the right to have a ***** in your butt is constitutionally assured. God bless America.

Edited, Sat Mar 27 11:12:56 2004 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 331 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)