Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
... to add it to mine.
You said that I didn't want marriage for homosexuals. Which is not the case. If you choose to pretend that you answered me with something different, then that's up to you.
So, I shall quote you: "The line between discrimination and opinion is a very thin one. I don't see how you're not discriminating here since you've offered no reasoning for why gay's ought not be married and addressed none of my points. It was a lengthy post so I can sympathize with not reading it entirely. "
I did give you reasons for my religious opinion, which you ignored. I said that in my church, the homosexual act is against God's word. To expand upon that in a (possibly pointless, given your inability to read) attempt to help you understand: since homosexual sex is, in my church, against the Word of God, officiating a marriage of two homosexual people would be saying that the relationship is fine in the eyes of the church, that the church is happy with them having sex. My church is not happy with that, because (I can say this ad infinitum if you like) we believe it does not fit in with the rules that God has given us to live by in His Word. That is my church's rules, and people who don't like them don't have to be in that church. There's no requirement to be part of it. It's a choice. It's like belonging to a club.
Since living in a particular country isn't anywhere near as much of a choice, mostly being an accident of birth, governments should ensure there is a state provision of marriage to all people who wish to get married, as consenting adults.
But that does not extend to private clubs which have no state sanctioning, no public service factor, and no requirement to belong. It's not like having a job, which you need to make money to keep you alive. It's not like going to a doctor, which helps you stay healthy and alive (although that's a bit funny to be writing to an American), and it's not like public transport, which enables necessary movement from place to place. It's an extra, another of life's choices. It doesn't (necessarily) keep you alive, fed, healthy, etc. It's for personal enjoyment. And the state has no right to decide what goes on there, unless what does go on trangresses a person or their possession.
You said that I didn't want marriage for homosexuals. Which is not the case. If you choose to pretend that you answered me with something different, then that's up to you.
So, I shall quote you: "The line between discrimination and opinion is a very thin one. I don't see how you're not discriminating here since you've offered no reasoning for why gay's ought not be married and addressed none of my points. It was a lengthy post so I can sympathize with not reading it entirely. "
I did give you reasons for my religious opinion, which you ignored. I said that in my church, the homosexual act is against God's word. To expand upon that in a (possibly pointless, given your inability to read) attempt to help you understand: since homosexual sex is, in my church, against the Word of God, officiating a marriage of two homosexual people would be saying that the relationship is fine in the eyes of the church, that the church is happy with them having sex. My church is not happy with that, because (I can say this ad infinitum if you like) we believe it does not fit in with the rules that God has given us to live by in His Word. That is my church's rules, and people who don't like them don't have to be in that church. There's no requirement to be part of it. It's a choice. It's like belonging to a club.
Since living in a particular country isn't anywhere near as much of a choice, mostly being an accident of birth, governments should ensure there is a state provision of marriage to all people who wish to get married, as consenting adults.
But that does not extend to private clubs which have no state sanctioning, no public service factor, and no requirement to belong. It's not like having a job, which you need to make money to keep you alive. It's not like going to a doctor, which helps you stay healthy and alive (although that's a bit funny to be writing to an American), and it's not like public transport, which enables necessary movement from place to place. It's an extra, another of life's choices. It doesn't (necessarily) keep you alive, fed, healthy, etc. It's for personal enjoyment. And the state has no right to decide what goes on there, unless what does go on trangresses a person or their possession.
No. You misunderstand. Again.
Though perhaps my phrasing muddled things a bit. In my FP I referred to "state marriages" as you call them as civil unions, to avoid the confusion between religious marriages and state marriages. Often talk about gay marriage revolves around two people talking around this terms. When I said you didn't support gay marriage, I meant the kind that aren't civil unions.
Furthermore, my point is that your church is discriminating against gays by saying they can't get married.
I'm not sure which church you belong to, but many many churches marry sinners, with full knowledge that marriage may only encourage their sinning in the future.
People have brought up a lot about the church "sanctioning" homosexuality as a problem with gay marriage. But the bible also says "sex for fun" is a sin too. Nowadays, marriage means lots of "sex for fun" (hopefully) as well. But the church wouldn't dare not marry these people because there are simply too many. Some churches even pass out condoms when premarital sex is a sin. This too is sanctioning a sin.
"Sanctioned" sins happen all the time.
So why all the grief with gay marriage? Especially when we take into account that there are only about three lines in the bible referring to homosexuality (NONE of which are jesus's words) and hundreds more on accepting others, that we are all sinners, and even jesus's own words on accepting outcasts.
The only explanation I can think of is a subtle homophobia.
Now, I'm not saying you're homophobic, only that the people that make/made decisions in your church probably are. At the very least, they lived in an era where homosexuality wasn't as pressing an issue.
The word of God may call homosexuality a sin. But the word of God also calls premarital sex, adultery, and loads of other stuff sins too. Yet every day, churches pass out condoms and allow divorces when affairs were involved.
So what real grounds do churches have for banning gay marriage?
Does gay marriage somehow alter the essence of christianity in ANY way?
The answer, in a word, is no.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Gay Marriage
12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
- 1835 Views
I disagree on the latter part
12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
- 1212 Views
I follow your point...
12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
- 1193 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
- 1190 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
- 1154 Views
You didn't read my post.
12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
- 1067 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
- 1107 Views
Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
- 1117 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
- 1075 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
- 564 Views
You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
- 1210 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
- 1068 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
- 1115 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
- 964 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
- 1212 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
- 1119 Views
Also
12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
- 1162 Views
And wrong again.
12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
- 1184 Views
Not so quick!
12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
- 1020 Views
Yes, so quick!
12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
- 968 Views
Let's be reasonable here
12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
- 1078 Views
Why do you get to judge?
12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
- 1105 Views
I don't
12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
- 998 Views
OK.
12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
- 1112 Views
Re: OK.
12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
- 1042 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
- 1006 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
- 1123 Views
Then please stop.
12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
- 1081 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
- 1019 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
- 1049 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
- 921 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
- 1066 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
- 1023 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
- 1138 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
- 1032 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
- 1105 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
- 1040 Views
Gah.
12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
- 990 Views
What a mature response.
12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
- 1173 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
- 1012 Views
Um
12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
- 1139 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
- 532 Views
It makes no sense
12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
- 976 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
- 1054 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
- 1130 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
- 970 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
- 1084 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
- 1138 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
- 1074 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that! *NM*
13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
- 517 Views
13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
- 879 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
- 516 Views
Yes
13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
- 927 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
- 960 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
- 1151 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
- 987 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
- 1034 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
- 1044 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
- 1058 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
- 1071 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
- 921 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
- 932 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
- 941 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
- 977 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
- 1099 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
- 1031 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
- 1117 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
- 980 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
- 588 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views *NM*
12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
- 579 Views
Simples
12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
- 1061 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
- 1059 Views
So.
14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
- 898 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
- 1416 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
- 1243 Views
Agreed *NM*
12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
- 466 Views
I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
- 860 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
- 1049 Views
A couple of things
12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
- 1029 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
- 1165 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
- 1050 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
- 986 Views
One point about Prop. 8
12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
- 1029 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
- 952 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
- 1037 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
- 858 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
- 1018 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
- 1128 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
- 809 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
- 1076 Views
You are absolutely wrong
12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
- 1072 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
- 991 Views
Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
- 986 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
- 1068 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
- 596 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
- 563 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
- 1139 Views
+1
12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
- 1177 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
- 1105 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
- 927 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
- 1106 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
- 551 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
- 570 Views
It's not snarky.
12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
- 1043 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
- 1332 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
- 959 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
- 1138 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
- 1017 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
- 957 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
- 1054 Views
So then two things come to mind...
12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
- 1031 Views
Only two?
12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
- 1028 Views
That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
- 1188 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
- 1056 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
- 1016 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
- 1003 Views
Actually, I agree with that
12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
- 905 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
- 1013 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
- 1129 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
- 600 Views
Starting again
12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
- 1100 Views
Not at all
12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
- 1040 Views
Re: Not at all
13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
- 836 Views
Agreed *NM*
13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
- 435 Views
Oh dear
13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
- 951 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
- 1110 Views