How do you feel about same-sex marriage? (problems, issues, family)

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

Do you realize what you've just stated? Your take:

Civil unions=anyone can do it. They get full rights, under the law
Marriage- religious ceremony. No rights unless you agree to do it civilly.

So, you are advocating to deny rights based on the way someone chooses to form a union. How interesting! That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying full rights for all, whether it be by civil union or marriage. The way you form your bond should have no effect on the rights you are afforded.

That is how it is now Choclot. A religious marriage means squat legally without the civil marriage contract. All marriages are really civil unions if they are to be legal. A marriage in the church does not afford you any rights at all. So we all should be able to partake of civil marriage contracts without the interference of any church or any religion. If you want your marriage sanctioned by your church, go ahead. But I do not believe in god and do not think your religion or your god should interject itself into law and force those laws on all of the populace, just because your religion is against it. You do know that many churches were against interracial marriage and still can refuse to perform them legally, the same as gay marriage. A church can refuse to marry anyone they want to and that right will not be taken away. But when a church or group of churches decide that they make the rules for all the other churches is tyranny of the majority. Do you not see that? So what if the church down the street from yours wants to perform gay marriages, why does yours decide for them and make laws enforcing it?

[loose cannon]

The Government should not be involved at all in marriage. It is a personal and religious practice. If two people have the same sexual desires and they would like to live together, it is their business. Of course the usual neo-con argument is that eventually we will legislate bestiality. This is absurd. If two human beings have an intimate and emotional interest in each other, they should be allowed to pursue it without ridicule. LooseCannon2012

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

So basically, you have no evidence to back up your claim? Got it. I think I'm done with you. A debate, in the absence of proof, is simply an argument. I'm not interested.

You know what? Asking me to 'prove' any of what I said in that post is like asking me to 'prove' that I was bullied and humiliated in Jr. High, almost 50 years ago. I've spent the last 13 years reading and listening to gays, lesbians and transgenders describe the many ways in which they are bullied and humiliated every day of their lives. How about you simply listen to them and maybe develop a bit of compassion? Because, as I see it, you have none now. All you see is the differences between them and you instead of recognizing the similarities in that they are all just as human as you. (In some cases their humanity shines much brighter than your own.)

[ChocLot]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

You know what? Asking me to 'prove' any of what I said in that post is like asking me to 'prove' that I was bullied and humiliated in Jr. High, almost 50 years ago. I've spent the last 13 years reading and listening to gays, lesbians and transgenders describe the many ways in which they are bullied and humiliated every day of their lives. How about you simply listen to them and maybe develop a bit of compassion? Because, as I see it, you have none now. All you see is the differences between them and you instead of recognizing the similarities in that they are all just as human as you. (In some cases their humanity shines much brighter than your own.)

Where have I done ANY of what you're claiming? What does listening and showing compassion have to do with anything? You're running on emotion; I'm just trying to deal in facts, evidence, etc. There's nothing left for us to do but agree to disagree.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

Wow; you say it doesn't change the core, yet you change it in your very post.

How did she change it? You are imagining things. She was very clear.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

I’m not going to keep going down the IR path with you. I’ve said time and time again that even if I accept your stance on IR marriage (which I don’t), domestic abuse, etc, it STILL does nothing to change the foundation of the institution. In fact, you keep proving the very opposite.



Your links are to 2 articles and a Wikipedia blog. Where is all of the scholar work done on this topic? I’m sorry, but someone’s blog/article is not proof of anything.

I think I’m done with this topic. No one wants to have an intelligent debate, supported with documentation. They just want to argue. Have at it.

Where is your supportive documentation? All you do is spout off your religious rhetoric repeatedly, have not seen any proof from you that the foundation of your theocratic marriage will be harmed by my secular gay marriage. You say we do not provide proof that there was ever gay marriages in history, I attached information about the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians of the US, you must have ignored it.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

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).

Not to take this off topic, I won't go into discussion, however, I will leave you with some articles on the issue of the verses you keep clinging to.

http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoités-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences (broken link)

History of Arsenokoites - Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals

http://www2.luthersem.edu/word&world...3_Hultgren.pdf

The 1st 2 are on Corinthians and Timothy and the misuse of 2 obscure greek words. The 2nd is from Lutheran Seminary on the meaning of Romans 1 and its complexities.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

Where have I done ANY of what you're claiming? What does listening and showing compassion have to do with anything? You're running on emotion; I'm just trying to deal in facts, evidence, etc. There's nothing left for us to do but agree to disagree.

So are you. There's absolutely no evidence that marriage is restricted to man-woman unions. That statement is coming straight out of your emotions. You decided that's the case, based on emotions, and now you want us to treat that as facts and evidence, when in reality, it's based on ChocLot's emotions.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by ChocLot

Instead of asking me about my translation, how about you just provide yours to disprove my quoted Scripture? I'm well aware that the Bible wasn't written in English. Your translation, please?

As one example, one of the obscure Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Malakoi. Originally, it referred to someone who was morally weak, a weakling.

The Apostle Paul - AD 55 - Greek - malakoi
Wycliffe - 1380 - neische
Wycliffe - 1388 - letchouris ayen kinde
Tyndale - 1526 - weaklinges
Martin Luther - 1534 - weichlinge
Coverdale - 1535 - weaklinges
Matthews - 1537 - weaklinges
Great Bible - 1539 - weaklynges
Swedish Version - 1541 - weaklingar
Geneva Bible - 1560 - wantons
Bishops Bible - 1568 - weaklinges
Valera Spanish - 1602 - effeminados
Rheims-Douay - 1609 - effeminat
King James Version - 1611 - effeminate
Portuguese - 1690 - efeminados
Daniel Mace New Testament - 1729 - the effeminate
Darby - 1884 - those who make women of themselves
Darby French - 1885 - effemines
Young’s Literal - 1898 - effeminate
ASV - 1901 - effeminate
Weymouth - 1903 - any who are guilty of unnatural crime
Louis Segund French - 1910 - effemines
Moffat - 1913 - catamites (boys who have sex with men)
Lamsa Translation - 1933 - men who lie down with males
New American - 1941 - sodomites
Revised Standard - 1952 - sexual perverts
Amplified - 1958 - those who participate in homosexuality
NASB - 1963 - effeminate
New American Bible - 1970 - boy prostitutes
New English - 1970 - guilty of homosexual perversion
NIV - 1973 - male prostitutes
NKJV - 1979 - homosexuals
JW-NWT - 1984 - men kept for unnatural purposes
New Century - 1987 - male prostitutes
Green’s Interlinear - 1986 - abusers
NRSV - 1989 - male prostitutes
Bible In Basic English - 1994 - one who is less than a man
CEV - 1995 - pervert
NLT - 1996 - male prostitute
Complete Jewish Bible - 1998 - active or passive homosexuality
International Standard Version - 2000 - male prostitutes
The Message - 2002 - those who use and abuse each other
World English Bible - 2005 - male prostitutes
God’s Word Translation - 2006 - homosexuals
The NET Bible - 2006 - passive homosexual partners

The remarkable semantic shift in the meaning of malakoi, which by 1958, came to equate malakoi with homosexuality instead of softness, moral weakness or effeminacy, was not prompted by new linguistic evidence. Instead, cultural factors influenced modern translators to inject anti-homosexual bias into their translation.

Malakoi is NEVER used in the Bible to mean gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans.

If you can't see the issue with the semantic shift in meaning of one of the 2 words in that verse, I don't know what to tell you. The evidence all indicates heavy conservative bias in Bible translations that were used to attack gays. It's not historical.

How did scientists "realize" this? Did they build a time machine to go back to the future? Difference between homosexual acts and homosexuality? Really....can you expound? Scholarly sources would be great, too.

Homosexuality is "the predisposition to be attracted to members of the same-sex". It has nothing to do with behavior. There are celibate gays, gays married to the opposite sex with children, and promiscuous gays, and monogamous gays.

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

[shiftymh]

Originally Posted by iwantyall2know

Throughout our nations history marriage has been between a man and a woman, but over time society has become more tolerant and accepting of same-sex marriage which is currently legal in 6 states. Do you consider this progress or a step back away from our traditional values and for what reason?

I think it should be legal but I don't consider it to be on the same level as normal marriage.