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.
Tolerance of different viewpoints (while still disagreeing) does not appear to be your strong suit. Maybe what you think is not that important to others, either. All of us have the same First Amendment right to comment in these forums.
I fully realize that. I've been subjected to quite a bit of insults from the poster in question that I responded to, as well as on this thread. Seriously.
You have no understanding of the history of marriage nor the anthropological and sociological reasons why this legal construct we call "marriage" differs in different societies and at different times.
When black people were emancipated in the 1860's the word "citizen" was not redefined. It just was extended to include folks who were not citizens prior to that.
When women were granted suffrage in 1920 the word "vote" was not redefined. A part of the population was extended the right to vote who were previously denied that right.
The tired, old, and factually untrue arguments repeated by Vizio have made no impact on legal scholars, district court judges, state supreme court justices in such states as Iowa and New Jersey, the US District Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Vizio does NOT get to "define" the word "marriage" to suit his own religious prejudices. But he is free to express his opinion.
Marriage is quite a complex word with multiple definitions. The same word is used to define various types of Legal contracts, Business Arraignments, Taxation Status, Religious rituals, Living arraignments and possibly even more things.
Even the religious definition will vary by religion.
With that said I do support the "Right" of a Religion to define what constitutes a marriage in that particular faith. If a person can not support the beliefs of a faith, they have no business following it. If they do follow a faith they are obligated to abide by it's rules.
Now as to what constitutes a "Legal" marriage that is a decision for the local court system to make. We may not agree with it, but if we live in a nation, we are obligated to abide by it's Civil and Criminal laws.
It just so happens in the USA there is no legal basis to forbid Same-sex marriage. But, none of us are forced to participate in such or even approve of it. We do have the right to believe it to be sinful, forbidden etc but we have no legal right to forbid anyone from engaging in such. Although we may forbid such to participate in our religious practices.
Like it or not we live in a secular nation and people are allowed to do some things our individual religions forbid.
I fully realize that. I've been subjected to quite a bit of insults from the poster in question that I responded to, as well as on this thread. Seriously.
Uh, oh. That's a problem for you? You are "subjected" to insults? Lol, we're ALL subjected to insults. You just aren't that special. Sorry.
Meanwhile t.o.d.a.y. a gay kid is getting the every loving Moderator cut: inappropriate language beat out of him for one reason and one reason only: he's gay. You're worried about insults. Every LGBT person in America has to cope with a world where the preachers in Podunk, America (and the self-righteous Phil Robertson crowd) are telling him he's a pervert and going to hell. If they weren't the OP would never have been written.
If being subjected to insults is difficult for you maybe you should lie down for a while.
If a few guys you wind up getting to know from work or other are not to your liking, lets say they want to eat pizza all the time, drink , watch football all the time.. go hunting as many babes as possible all the time, lets say I don't like those things, don't like those guys and stay away from them because 'there is zilch in common'. My thinking is they are not good leaders as men should be. That is my character.
so now I'm not a bigot right ?
but when it gets to this topic and the choice is the same for the same style of reasons, the person is a bigot or has some kind of weird outlook.
If people don't particularily like gay people, for myself its the guys I don't particularily like because men are supposed to be leaders, so what ?
people have a problem with people having character or something,
you'd almost think it was some kind of primitive tribal dispute being levied.
If its in the frame of a rel discussion, the third party movement attempts to invade the character of the religion without even knocking on the door, its just barges right in.
If its a social argument well whats left ?
all that's left is good for what would be a ' third party communication' a Rodney Dangerfeild no respect act...who cares, go down to the lib, gym. coffe shop, phone ole friends or something I donno , the big third party crybaby act no respect at the social in general is a trick for attention. And the barging down at a rel trying to call the shots is strange .
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-10-2014 at 04:33 PM..
Why is change for the sake of change a good thing?
It is not. I don't see anyone asserting that. I doubt there is a person in this discussion who thinks that either "change for the sake of change" OR "sameness for the sake of sameness" are good things. We change, or not, when there is a reason to change, or not.
The general argument is that all consenting adults who wish to be married should be free to do so. By extension, all consenting adults who do not wish to marry a person of the same gender, remain free to make the same choices they've always made. In fact, homosexuality will always be a minority orientation, so 90% or so of married couples will continue to be different genders. Existing marriages are not annulled. So ... nothing changes for you and anyone else who thinks homosexuality is wrong or suboptimal. The ONLY thing that changes is that same sex couples will no longer be marginalized or discriminated against. Since Christianity is, at least on paper, opposed to otherizing, marginalizing, hating, shaming, or discriminating against people for simply being different, this should not be a problem for you.
So let's say I'm gay and I'm traveling through Kentucky with my partner of 20 years. With us is OUR son who is 8 years old. While he is the biological son of my partner, he is our son and we have both raised him since birth. Let's say we get into a car accident and my partner is critically injured. Because we're not married, I have NO rights to visit my partner in the hospital - I'm not considered "immediate family." Nor do I have the authority to make life-saving decisions regarding her medical care. Instead, they would have to dig up some relative who may either be hundreds of miles away OR who might not even care about her because, like you, that relative loathes homosexuals and has written her out of his life years ago.
And what of the child? According to the law, I'm just a person and no more legally entitled to care for our son than a complete stranger. So instead of our son staying with me while my partner recovers, he might have to stay with some relative he hasn't even met. Worse still is if my partner should die, our son would end up staying with some other blood relative permanently - or worse, end up in foster care.
These things, and worse, have actually happened. Grieving partners prevented from attending a funeral or even visiting the grave. Threats and intimidation if they attempt it. Completely shut out of decisions about memorials, the option to eventually be buried next to them, etc.
If a few guys you wind up getting to know from work or other are not to your liking, lets say they want to eat pizza all the time, drink , watch football all the time.. go hunting as many babes as possible all the time, lets say I don't like those things, don't like those guys and stay away from them because ...'there is zilch in common'. My thinking is they are not good, not good leaders as men should be.
so now I'm not a bigot right ?
but when it gets to this topic and the choice is the same for the same style of reasons, the person is a bigot or has some kind of weird outlook.
If people don't particularily like gay people, for myself its the guys I don't particularily like because men are supposed to be leaders, so what ?
*people have a problem with people having character or something,
you'd almost think it was some kind of primitive tribal dispute being levied.
If its in the frame of a rel discussion, the movement attempts to invade the character of the religion without even knocking on the door, its just barges right in.
If its a social argument well whats left ?
all that's left is good for what would be a ' third party communication' a Rodney Dangerfeild no respect act...who cares, go down to the lib, gym. coffe shop, phone ole friends or something I donno , the big 'third party ' crybaby act no respect at the social in general is a trick for attention. And the barging down at a rel trying to call the shots is strange .
The difference is that others are not just staying away from homosexuals, or having their opinions of homosexuals. They are actively denying equal rights to homosexuals.
If your friends from work, who you don't agree with had to live their lives by your rules, just because YOU think that is the way they should live, or if you voted for and passed laws that made eating pizza and drinking beer against the law, they would push back.
You can have any opinion you want, but when you use that opinion to deny others the same rights you enjoy that is wrong.
Let me just say this,you are not portraying christianity in a good light with your bigoted opinions,and the more i see these bigoted short sighted opinions of christianity on here, the more i want to distance myself from it.
Your opinions on here are enough to prove to any open minded person that logic and clear thinking are not your strong points.
I agree completely. I am an ordained minister, educated at a very well established seminary and currently serve with a very large protestant denomination and frankly the views expressed by the resident pastor are embarassing to the point I would hate to be associated with them. That is why I rarely post responses to the resident pastor, and other fundies on here - they cannot see beyond their blinders and refuse to accept something that isn't tightly woven into their doctrinal beliefs.
Vizio, for reference you may want to check out this video by Betty Bowers - she explains far better than I could how the definition of marriage has changed over the years.
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.
