Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On a side note related to this topic, Issues Etc., a Lutheran (LCMS) radio program just did a segment on June 15th on homosexuality, bullying and Christian teaching. The Podcast is up if you want to subscribe but once the MP3 is available on their website, I'll post it here.
I don't have a problem with gays marrying, or having the same civil rights (insurance, DNR orders, hospital visits, raising children) as heterosexuals. (I've never been or even 'experimented' gay, or had any delusions/fears/qualms about my sexuality.) My attitude is that I don't like laws that are based on prejudice against ANY sect or group - everyone is supposed to be the same under the law, even when they break it (assault, fraud, child abuse or neglect, etc). The only laws that should be enforced (IMHO) are the ones that keep people from violating each others' rights, or harming others.
It bugs me that there are laws based on homosexuality while there are almost none left based on adultery. In other words, if you are gay, God hates you and will punish you, ministers will revile you, and legislatures will try to restrict you - but if you are adulterous, you can bang as many of the opposite sex as you like, give all of your money to strippers or hookers, boyfriends or mistresses while your spouse and kids do without or are controlled or even abused by you, and God, his ministers AND the legislatures still repetitively forgive you and let you do as you please. That's not MY God, TYVM. If gays are so bad and evil, why aren't adulterers just as bad? It all has to do with what goes on in peoples' private bedrooms, right? Jimmy Swaggart can bang as many whores as he likes, give them all of his congregation's money, and his congregation feels sorry for him and the stress he is obviously under - but if he started banging guys, and putting them up in nice condos with church money, they'd kick him to the curb.
(Just in case you're wondering, no I've never been cheated on. That's not the reason for the juxtaposition of gays/adulterers. You could make the same or similar argument for thieves, gamblers, alcoholics, drug abusers, frauds, pedophiles, and even serial killers.) The point is that God is going to measure self-indulgent, spouse-and-family-neglecting/abusing adulterers with a far shorter stick than gays who try to maintian a monogamous relationship and don't try to hurt anyone. So why do preachers and congregations give adulterers a free pass while beating up on gays?
Sorry, folks, my belief in God is very simple - the Golden Rule. If you hurt others, if you invade their rights or steal from them, if you purposely deceive them or indulge yourself to the exclusion of all others, if you rescind your responsibilities for your own self-indulgence - you're going to hell. If you are a kind, honest, decent guy or gal, who would never dream of harming anyone else or taking away their rights to live their own lives, who has a relationship with someone of the same sex, God will love you and reward you.
I just don't get what people don't get about this. You can dissect all of the Biblical verses down to what John or Paul meant by three massively translated and interpreted phrases, you can debate for years on how many gays can or should be allowed to dance on the head of a pin, you can get yourself all worked up over five or six words in some obscure letter to the Corinthians, but the very pure and simple point remains - God don't like ugly. And 'ugly' is what the 10 Commandments defined... a lack of respect for others and oneself, an abuse of others and a violation of their intrinsic, God-given rights to live and love and grow and be happy and responsible. Everything else is just preachers trying to make their congregations, or legislators trying to make their constituents, feel superior to others by maligning those 'others'... and profiting thereby.
Why is that so hard for people to grasp? (Maybe because they want so desperately to believe that they are superior and that God loves them, not those other guys?) JMHO.
"The PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) is also much more liberal than the PCUSA. " This statement is blatantly the opposite of the truth. The PCA broke off from PCUSA in 1970's because of predominant liberal theological and social views of the PCUSA.
Carpe
Thank you for correcting me. It was an honest mistake--I get those mixed up.
Do you see any reference to time frame in those definitions? Neither do I.
And you can keep giving yourself a rim job all you like. I honestly expect it at this point as you've never once shown the ability to admit that you're wrong despite a handful of people giving you spectacular beatdowns on this very topic. You have obtained a level of delusion that only hardcore religious indoctrination can provide. Congratulations. That said, I'd love to know what how you deal with such ignorance. After all in the last 3 years we've seen a the highest of state level courts (In re MARRIAGE CASES) and a District Court (Perry vs. Schwarzenegger) each found that denying gays the right to marry was discrimination and that said discrimination was unconstitutional.
The real world is kicking your ***.
Still waiting for an actual, coherent argument. Rather than arguing from emotion, are you able to explain to me how I am wrong? I honestly don't care what some liberal hack judge "found". Gay people can, and do get married all the time. I think it's a horrible precedent to create law based on sexual preference. What's next? Polygamists that just want to marry multiple wives? Pedophiles? I realize gay !=- pedophile, but it's a question we need to ask. Once you go making law based on feelings rather than facts it opens up a whole new set of questions.
Quote:
LOL WUT? I figured you'd have an epic spin for this one, but you've somehow managed to surpass even my expectations. Unfortunately for you, I am much smarter than you are so you're going to lose this one too.
You seem to be more arrogant, too.
Quote:
A Calvinist...which you are on record as confirming this is what you are...is a follower of Calvinism. Also...and unlike homosexuality...it is not debatable that lying is a sin. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll have plenty of homosexuals to keep you company in eternal damnation.
ok? I agree with Calvin on his teachings. Your point?
And no...we don't go to heaven based on how we behave, and likewise, we don't go to hell based on behavior. We all deserve it, homosexual and hetero as well.
Quote:
We'll get there. Trust me.
Sure they could, they just wouldn't be heteros anymore. Of course you could always take the semantics road and point out that they could follow their hetero-marriage counterparts in entering loveless marriages of convience but then not only does that pretty much invalidate the whole technical definition of marriage, you also run into a huge problem of explaining why a hetero person would enter into that kind of marriage with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex and how this semantical argument holds even the slightest bit of relevance.
The issue is that you are somehow redefining a new gender, or class of people as homosexual. The facts simply don't support that. You aren't born gay, and you aren't a new class of person.
Also, marriage is not always about love. I personally know several people that have arranged marriages, and are quite happy with them.
Quote:
No, we pass laws to protect the freedoms of minorities and/or overturn laws that discriminate against those minorites. We've already knocked out laws that discriminate against blacks, interracial couples and gay couples who wish to have sex, just to name a few. Gay marriage is the next one on the chopping block.
Get married. No one is stopping you. Just abide by the same rules I am. No one is discriminating against you, and you aren't a minority being discriminated against.
Quote:
That's because your side has absolutely zero logical basis for supporting their opinion that isn't rooted in either religion or prejudice, neither of which are valid reasons for creating legislation. This is the biggest reason why you lost Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Other than that you aren't being discriminated against since you have the same access to marriage that any other person not self-identifying as gay does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny
It bugs me that there are laws based on homosexuality while there are almost none left based on adultery.
So, then Granny....why do you support making a new class of marriage just to suit a very small minority of people that self-identify as gay. There is no physical trait identifying as such, it's not a protected religion, and anyone can claim to be gay...or change their mind and claim not to be on a whim. Wouldn't it be more logical with your point of view to grant special marriage rights to adulterers?
Still waiting for an actual, coherent argument. Rather than arguing from emotion, are you able to explain to me how I am wrong?
Were you repeatedly beaten over the head with metal objects as a child? Screw religious indoctrination, I'm looking straight to severe mental trauma to explain this level of obtuseness.
Quote:
I honestly don't care what some liberal hack judge "found".
And you don't know your history either. Judge Vaughn Walker was originally nominated to his seat by Ronald Reagan until Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, blocked that nomination because...get this...they believed he was "insensitive" to gays. It wasn't until George H.W Bush re-nominated him that it finally went through.
SAN FRANCISCO / Walker becomes chief district judge (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/01/BAGIL8HGVF1.DTL - broken link)
Yes, that's right. The (twice) Republican picked judge who was originally blocked by Democrats for perceived prejudice against gays was the one who laughed your side out of court and issued the landmark ruling that will likely be the catalyst for gay marriage bans being overturned at the Supreme Court.
If that isn't a quick in the balls, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Gay people can, and do get married all the time.
Yes, in those states which allow them.
Quote:
I think it's a horrible precedent to create law based on sexual preference. What's next? Polygamists that just want to marry multiple wives? Pedophiles? I realize gay !=- pedophile, but it's a question we need to ask. Once you go making law based on feelings rather than facts it opens up a whole new set of questions.
And no high court has given any credence to this opinion. What does that tell you? Well, I know that it will tell you that they are all liberal activists out to kill Jesus, but a smart person might stop and think "damn, maybe I'm wrong".
Quote:
You seem to be more arrogant, too.
I'm extremely arrogant. No mistake there.
Quote:
ok? I agree with Calvin on his teachings. Your point?
For now, I'm simply establishing the fact that you're a liar.
Quote:
The facts simply don't support that. You aren't born gay, and you aren't a new class of person.
Too bad the entire scientific community has completely rejected this theory as total bull****. While there is a debate about what causes homosexuality, they are in agreement that it is NOT a choice. See link for documentation, item #46.
The real irony to you taking this position though, is that your side tried to argue that point in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but they could apparently find NO ONE from the scientific community that was willing to testify under oath to this point. The only two expert witnesses they could even field were a political science professor and the head of some American values group, both of which were deemed to be not qualified as experts. On the flip side, the other side offered nine expert witnesses, all of which "were ampily qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified."
In the biggest court case involving gay marriage, your side had zero evidence or rationale for their position that wasn't based in religious or moral beliefs.
Epic fail.
Quote:
Get married. No one is stopping you. Just abide by the same rules I am. No one is discriminating against you, and you aren't a minority being discriminated against.
Other than that you aren't being discriminated against since you have the same access to marriage that any other person not self-identifying as gay does?
If a gay couple cannot enter into a legally binding and recognized marriage to each other, they meet the textbook definition of being discriminated against. Your lead pipe induced levels of stupidity are in direct conflict with reality, and at least two courts have rejected similar lines of thinking.
On a side note related to this topic, Issues Etc., a Lutheran (LCMS) radio program just did a segment on June 15th on homosexuality, bullying and Christian teaching. The Podcast is up if you want to subscribe but once the MP3 is available on their website, I'll post it here.
Man the floor looks nice in here. Shiny.
Bosco, did you use Mop n Glo when you wiped the floor with Calvinist or is this just plain old soap and water?
Well, whatever you did, it positively sparkles in here.
Man the floor looks nice in here. Shiny.
Bosco, did you use Mop n Glo when you wiped the floor with Calvinist or is this just plain old soap and water?
Well, whatever you did, it positively sparkles in here.
Neither actually. I prefer the tears of religious zealots. Only problem is that it doesn't last long so in a couple days it'll be needing a fresh new coat which I'll be more than happy to provide.
Maybe it's time we just ignore people like Calvinist and Gunluvver. They will never get past their fear of damnation from their religion, but there are numerous people around that do support our cause! Over a hundred ministers in the Omaha city limit alone..
Last edited by Omahahonors; 06-16-2011 at 10:50 AM..
<snip>
Get married. No one is stopping you. Just abide by the same rules I am. No one is discriminating against you, and you aren't a minority being discriminated against.
<snip>
So, then Granny....why do you support making a new class of marriage just to suit a very small minority of people that self-identify as gay. There is no physical trait identifying as such, it's not a protected religion, and anyone can claim to be gay...or change their mind and claim not to be on a whim. Wouldn't it be more logical with your point of view to grant special marriage rights to adulterers?
1) Yes, they ARE actually being stopped - gays are not allowed to have the same governmental and societal rights of other married couples; the right to assign benificiary and end-of-life legalities, the right to even visit each other in the hospital because their spouses "are not family"; even, in some states, the right to equally share domiciles as well as - if the contractural arrangement fails or is violated - the right to a redress of grievances and an equal sharing of the benefits attained during the relationship/agreement in divorce court.
2) No, I don't support a special dispensation for ANY group - I support equality across the board, where any consenting adult can marry -i.e., enter into a legally binding and mutually-agreeable contract - any other consenting adult, legally, with all of the rights and responsibilities - as well as the consequences for violatng that contract - thereto.
The reason DH and I got married was not passionate love or sexual attraction (although those were present) but because we both wanted to share the responsibilities and benefits of a mutually-agreeable contractural commitment. He put me and the chlidren on his insurance, we made each other our beneficiaries in our life insurance policies, we both made wills and living wills that provided for each other's involvement in very personal decisions, and even developed an agreement that delineated who would be responsible for what in the event of a dissolution of the marriage. These sorts of things cannot be done in gay marriage.
Well, OK, they CAN be - but all you need is a judge or jury that decides that a mother who despises her gay child and has not seen him/her for 15 years has more "rights" than a present, gay and loving spouse, or that gay people cannot be trusted to raise children simply because some legislature, judge, or jury equates "gay" with "pedophile" - and legislation that forbids gay marriage exacerbates this. In a heterosexual marriage and resultant divorce other topics may come up, but legalities and fairness are suspended when the word "gay" is introduced into such proceedings. And as long as we continue to separate "gays" out as "not quite equal" in legal responsibilities, benefits, and legislative debates, we are doing a disservice not only to that minority, but to our own progression as a law-abiding, human-right-supporting, species. Legally, by "not permitting" gay marriage, we are saying that gays who enter into contractural agreements for mutual benefit and mutual responsibility are not equal under the law, and the law backhandedly permits prejudices that affect not only their quality of life but their legal redress of grievances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
