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.
What’s not hate speech? The word n*gger? I beg to differ. The word marriage? I agree. Which is why your analogy doesn’t work.
The examples you gave gun/firearm, cop/police officer are equally irrelevant. I, in no way, see any of these these terms as offensive/different. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. What am I missing?
Folks on this thread have told me to keep my religious beliefs out of this debate. I’ve respected their wish. Why are you trying to interject Christianity into this? Do you believe Christianity is the only religion that is against homosexuality? I’m not really sure why Christianity catches all the “homophobic” flak.
In all the examples you give of traditional marriages, what remains constant? In your own examples? Will you be honest enough to say? I’ve asked this multiple times, but no one will at least admit the constant.
I won’t entertain the rest of your Christianity rant. Perhaps start a new thread in the Religion forum if you’d like to honestly discuss this. I somehow doubt you’re genuinely interested in my answer and will probably brush off any explanations you receive.
Nope, not even close. Saying red and red only, imposing a restriction on rights. I’ve advocated throughout this thread that this should be changed. Seriously…are you all purposely ignoring this?
News flash: Not only straight people are against gay marriage. I know some gay folks who are against it too.
Yes, but in the examples that you yourself give, what remains constant? No matter how you stretch it, none of these redefine the core principles of marriage. Will you be honest enough to admit what the core foundation/similarity is in all of the examples you give?
You are the one that brings it up all the time. you even state that your religion forbids gay marriage. It is you, not me that is ranting. You don't like being called out for the black bigot you are being. then too bad, get used to it. The Uniterian Church wants to wed gay people, why should other religions stop them, why should religion determine secular law? DO YOU NOT GET IT, WE ARE A SECULAR NATION, NOT A THEOCRACY. Keep your religion out of law, that is the bottom line and if you do not like gay marriage, do not get one. But stop denying us the full rights of Equal Marriage making laws like DOMA. DOMA stops any kind of recognition of any king of gay union. NOM is going from state to state to force the governments to ban gay marriage, gay domestic partnerships, and gay family health care from corporations and municipalities. None of that is fair or equal. Want to talk about the back of the friggin bus. Try being a second class citizen in todays USA that is supposed to be free and where everyone enjoys equality. That is a load of bull. WE gays and lesbians fought along side of you for equal rights in the 60's we marched and yelled, we got brutally attacked by the cops as the rest of the marchers were. But you get full equal rights and the right to marry the one you love. WE get thrown under the bus, told to fight some more, you have not suffered enough to deserve full equal rights. Try and talk to some of your elders and find out for real what oppression feels like, what being hated by society feels like, to have laws made against your freedom and liberties. It SUCKS dear.
Slaves did marry. In some instances it was encouraged by their owners because it was believed it would discourage them from running away. Citizenship is another topic altogether and is irrelevant to this discussion.
To say that the desire was always there is mighty presumptuous. Furthermore, it can not be proven, so I won't continue along this hypothetical path.
You, and many others, have still failed to show how any of this disproves my position that marriage is a covenant between man/woman. I give up asking for proof. I know now that I won't get it.
In many religious communities that is the one and only definition of a marriage. However, in many it's not - there are thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc here in the US that will ordain same-sex marriages.
However, this thread brought up the concept of civil marriages in US law. In that context, marriage is simply a contract, crafted within the law, that confers some 1400 joint rights to couples that choose to enter into one. As such, it is subject to Constitutional oversight - namely the 14th Amendment which requires that civil laws be applied equally.
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
I'm not interested in "disproving" your biblical quote. And, since I currently have three separate versions of the Bible, I'm not going to quote all three of them for you. I will name them, so you might head to a book store and get them for yourself if you wish. I have the King James, the Revised Standard and the Prince of Peace editions. So, what version do you have?
As I am not a scientist myself, I can't explain how they came to their conclusions on homosexuality or anything else. I just accept the facts that there are some people who know more than I do and know how to extract the necessary info from the facts. As I said above, even heterosexuals are capable of 'homosexual acts', in that, while the heterosexual male wants his sex with a female, he's perfectly capable of 'homosexual acts' - ie having sex with another male - either for lack of a female partner or for dominance (such as prison inmates). And, of course, homosexual males, while their preferred mode of sex is with another male, are capable of heterosexual acts, such as those "living in the closet" by marrying a female and not acknowledging their homosexuality, sometimes not even to themselves. But in either of the above cases, such a life can be maintained only for just so long. That's why you hear of married men "suddenly becoming gay". Nothing sudden about it, they always were gay - they simply spent half their life denying it to those around them and sometimes even to themselves. legalizing same sex marriage will, in most cases, eliminate those 'sudden' coming outs.
Dying to know, I doubt it. You want something to attack and argue. Maybe it just might have something to do with 97% of the world being straight and as unfair as it might sound, the majority calls the shots. Life just isn’t fair is it? Nah, that can’t have anything to do with it.
Wrong Joe, the majority does not make the rules for the minorities. Once we start doing that, then which next minority gets their rights on the chopping block. Lets see, few hispanics in the state of Washington, so they don't deserve the same rights? Once one minority is put under the looking glass, more will follow. History showed how the Nazis first took over Poland, asking the Polish people to turn in their Jewish neighbors, their gay neighbors, then when the Nazis were done with the Jews and gays, the Polish were the next in the gays chambers. Do you think the Polish thought for one moment that they were next. Probably, but it did not stop them from turning against their neighbors or turning them in. We are not animals, we are people that work hard and pay taxes, we are the same as you, but gay. That is not a good enough reason to deny us the full rights of marriage. There is no good reason that does not end up back at the morals taught by the bible. Separate Church and State, keep it that way please.
Slaves did marry. In some instances it was encouraged by their owners because it was believed it would discourage them from running away.
Not at the founding of our country. Slaves were not allowed to marry.
It was later, that they could "marry", only if they had permission from their slave owners (and it was the slave owners who decided which slave could "marry" which slave) and the word "marry" is used loosely here, because there was NOT any LEGAL support for that "marriage". Slaves were still property, and that 'marriage" as you stated above, is just so that the slave owners could protect their property (yes PROPERTY, not people). There was nothing LEGAL about that marriage, only that the slave owners had property.
Quote:
Citizenship is another topic altogether and is irrelevant to this discussion.
actually citizenship is VERY relevant to the topic because the laws of the land only allowed CITIZENS to marry. Since slaves weren't citizens, their "marriages" were just "shams" to protect the slave owners.
Once slaves became citizens, they could marry only other freed slaves, freely. However, should a freed slave want to marry someone who was white (and don't even deny that there could have been interest in other races back then, that is why the HUMAN race has survived so long in the first place, INTERRACIAL marriages throughout history), it was illegal.
It was illegal for Asians to marry whites as well.
Quote:
To say that the desire was always there is mighty presumptuous.
BULL crap.
how do you think the Human race has survived this long? Because of interracial mixing throughout history.
Greeks often married those from Persia.
Romans invaded so much of Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia, that there were many interracial "marriages" through much of Romes supremacy.
Quote:
Furthermore, it can not be proven, so I won't continue along this hypothetical path.
yet it can. Its called DNA. You should look it up. Trace your DNA , you'll probably find out that you aren't totally Caucasian or Asian or whatever "pure" race you think yourself to be.
Quote:
You, and many others, have still failed to show how any of this disproves my position that marriage is a covenant between man/woman. I give up asking for proof. I know now that I won't get it.
yes we have. several times. Its not our fault you choose to ignore it in favor of your theological beliefs.
and you fail to understand that in the original religious context of marriage, was about owning women. It wasn't about love. It was about OWNING a person, and then using that woman to have children. Many times, it was against the WILL of that woman (many of the past marriages, today would have been considered illegal and any woman who was forced to have sex against her will, would be charged with rape).
funny how you want to ignore that not so long ago, women were nothing more than property.
I'm not interested in "disproving" your biblical quote. And, since I currently have three separate versions of the Bible, I'm not going to quote all three of them for you. I will name them, so you might head to a book store and get them for yourself if you wish. I have the King James, the Revised Standard and the Prince of Peace editions. So, what version do you have?
That's exactly what you were doing. I don't even know why I'm still entertaining you. But here goes:
1 Timothy 1:9-11:
NIV: 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.
KJV: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Revised: understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Prince of Peace Translation: Never heard of it? Can you provide a link so that I can look up this Scripture?
As I am not a scientist myself, I can't explain how they came to their conclusions on homosexuality or anything else. I just accept the facts that there are some people who know more than I do and know how to extract the necessary info from the facts. As I said above, even heterosexuals are capable of 'homosexual acts', in that, while the heterosexual male wants his sex with a female, he's perfectly capable of 'homosexual acts' - ie having sex with another male - either for lack of a female partner or for dominance (such as prison inmates). And, of course, homosexual males, while their preferred mode of sex is with another male, are capable of heterosexual acts, such as those "living in the closet" by marrying a female and not acknowledging their homosexuality, sometimes not even to themselves. But in either of the above cases, such a life can be maintained only for just so long. That's why you hear of married men "suddenly becoming gay". Nothing sudden about it, they always were gay - they simply spent half their life denying it to those around them and sometimes even to themselves. legalizing same sex marriage will, in most cases, eliminate those 'sudden' coming outs.
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.
Never cared about the issue and i never will. Any two consenting adults can do anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or the rights of others. And who someone marries qualifies under that mantra as far as i'm concerned.
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 want all of us to accept your definition of marriage, even though you can't support your position on the subject. so all you can do is turn tail.
Not at the founding of our country. Slaves were not allowed to marry.
It was later, that they could "marry", only if they had permission from their slave owners (and it was the slave owners who decided which slave could "marry" which slave) and the word "marry" is used loosely here, because there was NOT any LEGAL support for that "marriage". Slaves were still property, and that 'marriage" as you stated above, is just so that the slave owners could protect their property (yes PROPERTY, not people). There was nothing LEGAL about that marriage, only that the slave owners had property.
actually citizenship is VERY relevant to the topic because the laws of the land only allowed CITIZENS to marry. Since slaves weren't citizens, their "marriages" were just "shams" to protect the slave owners.
Once slaves became citizens, they could marry only other freed slaves, freely. However, should a freed slave want to marry someone who was white (and don't even deny that there could have been interest in other races back then, that is why the HUMAN race has survived so long in the first place, INTERRACIAL marriages throughout history), it was illegal.
It was illegal for Asians to marry whites as well.
BULL crap.
how do you think the Human race has survived this long? Because of interracial mixing throughout history.
Greeks often married those from Persia.
Romans invaded so much of Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia, that there were many interracial "marriages" through much of Romes supremacy.
yet it can. Its called DNA. You should look it up. Trace your DNA , you'll probably find out that you aren't totally Caucasian or Asian or whatever "pure" race you think yourself to be.
yes we have. several times. Its not our fault you choose to ignore it in favor of your theological beliefs.
and you fail to understand that in the original religious context of marriage, was about owning women. It wasn't about love. It was about OWNING a person, and then using that woman to have children. Many times, it was against the WILL of that woman (many of the past marriages, today would have been considered illegal and any woman who was forced to have sex against her will, would be charged with rape).
How does this in any way change the FOUNDATION of marriage?
funny how you want to ignore that not so long ago, women were nothing more than property.
When did I do this? Can you say specifically?
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.
You want all of us to accept your definition of marriage, even though you can't support your position on the subject. so all you can do is turn tail.
Where do I say you have to accept it? Can you provide any support for your claim? Any at all?
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.
Difference between homosexual acts and homosexuality? Really....can you expound? Scholarly sources would be great, too.
I don't even know why I'm still entertaining you. But here goes:
