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.
In what way does same sex marriage change "the core foundation" of marriage? Unless one thinks marriage is only about having children, the "core foundation" remains the same - a relationship between the spouses that encourages cooperation in life decisions.
Wow; you say it doesn't change the core, yet you change it in your very post.
What do you mean Genesis is not literal? What other interpretation do you have of Adam and Eve's union?
Genesis is a metaphorical Hebrew story. Adam symbolizes humanity (Adam is the Hebrew word for mankind/human). Jews have viewed Genesis as allegorical for centuries. We've already proven most of the events in Genesis did not occur (6 day creation, 6000 year old earth, global flood etc.).
Quote:
I'm not arguing equality, so your point about Jews wanting equality is moot. I'm a Christian and I agree with equality also.
Separate but equal never is.
Quote:
No, Genesis does not have to include all instances of marriage, but can you tell me anywhere in the bible where marriage was discussed and it referenced same-sex unions?
No, because gays were unknown at the time. Once again, the Bible doesn't mention minority cases. Does the Bible mention interracial marriage? I know at least one verse that forbids it.
Quote:
You say that gays were not "discovered" until 19th century AD. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 says this:
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Homosexuality was not added to that verse until 1958 A.D. The word that was translated that way, does not mean homosexuality.
Quote:
It would seem that homosexuality has been around way before your claim.
No, you just apparently don't understand the history of the Bible. Conservative Bible publishers added homosexuality to the above verse to condemn gays in the 20th Century. Prior to that, and during Paul's day, it never referred to gay people. It's sad that you misrepresent gays so much based on such a flawed understanding of your holy book.
Quote:
And your argument about God and polygamy STILL does nothing to change the core foundation and definition of marriage.
If God supported polygamy, how can one man, one woman be the exclusive meaning of marriage? Again, your logical is flawed.
Why all the religious talk? This is not a discussion about marriage within religion, it's a talk about a legal entity - a contract within the law called a civil marriage.
I was answering a poster who wanted to discuss Christianity. So, it's only okay to discuss/attack Christianity if you're pro-gay marriage, but if you respond and are anti-gay marriage, you're "bringing religion into the discussion"? Gotcha.
I hesitate to answer the question, because I'm thinking you won't believe me. But here goes: No, I don't have a problem with the distinction. As long as I had full access to my rights, I couldn't care less. AND, as long as other races/ethnicities had this same distinction (asians, indians, etc). Otherwise, it indeed would be a restriction. But if each race had their own label for "marriage" who cares...I want my rights, by any means necessary.
As I've stated before, separate but equal didn't fail because we were separate. It failed because we weren't equal.
Well, I disagree. I find the thought abhorrent and about as unAmerican as it gets.
I'll challenge you. Can you think of anything within our law that, despite it being the exact same thing, we call it by different names based on the classification (black, white, muslim, christian, atheist, homosexual, heterosexual, etc) of person availing him or herself to it?
I was answering a poster who wanted to discuss Christianity. So, it's only okay to discuss/attack Christianity if you're pro-gay marriage, but if you respond and are anti-gay marriage, you're "bringing religion into the discussion"? Gotcha.
No, I don't think that at all. Frankly, I don't see why religion is brought up in any discussion about civil marriage (well I do - many people are theocratic (especially on this issue) and think their particular religious beliefs should be written into our civil, secular law and imposed on everybody).
While I do not prefer men as sex partners it is not my place to restrict the preference of others.
In any case why should sexual preference, with the sole exception of child molestation, affect the rights and duties of any citizen? Equal protection under the law is a basic tenant of our society. It should guide our legal position on same sex marriage.
Genesis is a metaphorical Hebrew story. Adam symbolizes humanity (Adam is the Hebrew word for mankind/human). Jews have viewed Genesis as allegorical for centuries. We've already proven most of the events in Genesis did not occur (6 day creation, 6000 year old earth, global flood etc.).
Yes, but did Jews disprove the original function of marriage (between a man and a woman)?
Separate but equal never is.
No, because gays were unknown at the time. Once again, the Bible doesn't mention minority cases. Does the Bible mention interracial marriage? I know at least one verse that forbids it.
Homosexuality was not added to that verse until 1958 A.D. The word that was translated that way, does not mean homosexuality.
No, you just apparently don't understand the history of the Bible. Conservative Bible publishers added homosexuality to the above verse to condemn gays in the 20th Century. Prior to that, and during Paul's day, it never referred to gay people. It's sad that you misrepresent gays so much based on such a flawed understanding of your holy book.
Where is your proof? Again, you say these things without proof. Where are your scholarly articles? Artifacts? Anything?
I'm trying to avoid too much bible talk but consider this:
In Romans 1:26-27 Paul says, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
If God supported polygamy, how can one man, one woman be the exclusive meaning of marriage? Again, your logical is flawed.
I didn't say one man/one woman. Why are you deliberating misquoting me? I said man/woman. Polygamy is still within the confines of the original intent of marriage (bond between the opposite sexes).
Huh? Arus has said no such thing. What rights does Arus want people in civil unions to have access to that people in marriages would not be allowed to access?
Yes, Choclot seems to reading what is not there.
anti-same sex zealots = keep marriage religious
so my solution would do so. marriage would still be religious, but to be legal, all couples must have a civil union CONTRACT done and signed.
You say that gays were not "discovered" until 19th century AD. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 says this:
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
It would seem that homosexuality has been around way before your claim.
And your argument about God and polygamy STILL does nothing to change the core foundation and definition of marriage.
First, I'd like to know from which version of the Bible you got your quote. Because neither version I have reads that way at all. (no mention of "practicing homosexuality".) Or were you unaware that the Bible has been translated and re-translated from ancient languages many times throughout it's history? You are aware that it wasn't written in English, right?
What the other poster was stating is that it wasn't but a hundred years ago that scientists realized there is an actual difference between "homosexual acts" (which your Bible is actually referring to) and homosexuality itself. Even some heterosexuals are capable of "homosexual acts" whereas, while capable of "heterosexual acts", the homosexual is really only comfortable with loving someone of his/her own gender.
Most unfortunate that you keep asking questions of those whom you disagree with and continue to get answers that you don’t like and really don’t want to hear anyway. This is why many don’t bother responding or even participating in these discussions. You haven’t changed anyone’s mind or opinion one bit in addition to making reasoned dialogue impossible.
I'm starting to realize this. My opinion *will not* under any circumstances be moved. I'm still unsure why I'm even bothering.
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.
