quote: If you have nosy neighbors, buy a crib and put a robot in there with a blanket over it. Program it to cry a lot. (you can get one from K.A.M.A. Inc.)
We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)
The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.
Just in case, keep a room open for us. If things get really bad as Mr. Bush spends his "political capital" you may have some visitors!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No worries, Bob - you haven't insulted me (or Julie - I know that for a fact) and you certainly haven't lost a friend. My description of Christianity being "broken" is an oversimplification at best. I certainly have no problems with what you have said or what you perceive to be the problem - I think it's accurate in fact, but I was not in the mood in my first post to think that deeply about it.
quote:Maybe the point is to be vocal about what I think is true about Christianity and maybe it'll spark something in someone who might otherwise not have understood that one thing in that particular light.
Yes, I think that is part of the point. My own reason for posting here was to be vocal about the fact that I am a Christian, and that I think these things are wrong. How non-Christians view Christianity is important to me, and I wanted to be clear that we're not of one mind on this - and that I don't believe that this behavior is in accord with the virtues and outlook on life that the Bible teaches.
Besides, I've heard rumor of a chocolate fountain at the wedding. Oboe solo nonwithstanding, I don't think Julie would miss that for the world.
posted
Sara, I talked to Bob on AIM, and he said he will not be responding to anything else you post. He is really quite offended. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, obviously, promised chocolate is the way to get and keep freinds around here. Won't they all be surprised when dessert is molded jello?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob! Why would I be upset with you when we agree? I'm not trying to change people's religous views - at least, not in this thread. I have not studied enough yet to have made a decision on the morality or not of homosexual relationships on a purely religious basis.
What I'm concerned about right now is that a lot of people can't seperate their relgious issues from their civil issues. A lot of "sinful" things are legal - and it really confounds me that so many people think that this is an instance in which it's okay to use their religious beliefs to legally discriminate against an entire group of people.
The thing is that, to me, this looks so much like the inter-racial marriage issues this country already dealt with. Why are we moving backwards? That's what I want to know.
So on, I'm not trying - at least, not right now, and if I do in the future it will not be on a public level - to get people to change their religious views. I'm only trying show people that the religious argument against homosexuals should not be the same as the legal arguments.
And, it would take a whole lot more than disagreeing with me on this subject to lose my friendship, I promise. My best friend is a very conservative girl (she's joining the LCMS, alas ) and I'm pretty certain that she voted very differently than I did, and very possibly would have supported these measures had one been up in Illinois. I don't love her less. I'd have tried to change her mind, but I never would have - and never will - cut off my friendship with her. Or anyone else. Not over one issue. Honestly.
(Dan too. Promise. We love you!)
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I was in a very weird "place" after the election. I felt as if I was out of touch with everyone and everything. Even people who I thought I agreed with I found I was sort of not seeing things the same way they were.
And, really, it's okay. I just care more about friendships I've formed here (virtual and real) than I do about winning a point in an online debate. If debate this is...
I've said all I can on the election and voting. On Christianity, my hope is the same as non-Christianity would be -- that I live a good life and prove useful to others in their attempts to live a good life. Some believe that this cannot be done without Jesus. I'm not one of those. I believe that there are people who can inspire us to be better than we would allow ourselves to be. Some of these people are Christians and some are not.
Oddly, I find myself believing in a universal morality, but one that doesn't necessarily come from God or scripture. Although it can. And for me, it mostly does. I've just met too many strong and moral people who aren't religious to ever believe that religion is NECESSARY for moral behavior. I have other reasons for being Christian that are probably beyond my ability to express right now in any coherent fashion.
Ugh. I've probably said too much again.
Anyway, come to the wedding. Chocolate for everyone!
posted
What I'd really love to see is for Christians everywhere to believe that it is against their religion to act against people because of fear, anger, or hatred. The tragedy for me is not that Christians are against homosexuality, but that they think that this justifies them acting without love for homosexuals. I don't know if I've been doing a great job of this, but the idea that I've been trying to push is that while it may be important for Christians who aren't dead set against homosexual unions or what have you to explain to other Christians their reasoning, I think it is much more important for them to propogate the idea that the Christian way to approach any situation, even those involving those you think are directly against Christianity, is with open love and understanding.
You're unlikely to convince other Christians with arguments about homosexuality. They either have good reasons for their beliefs or they don't. In either case, they're not going to be particularly amenable to change. But a noncontentious renewal of what Christianity is supposed to be about would alleviate so many problems, the homosexual one likely among them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I see. But the sad thing is that Christianity is interpretive. There are those, like me, who believe the important thing is to understand Christ's message and take the GENERAL PRINCIPLES as the take home lesson. That means that it's our duty to understand Christ's teachings and emulate His behavior, even if there are parts of the Bible that contradict that (or rather seem to).
but there are others who believe that following Christ as if He gives us merely a set of guidelines and examples, rather than literal commands, is a mistake.
To me, the whole point of the new covenant was an invitation to puzzle it out for ourselves based on a few important rules. We CAN do this!!!
It seems to me that when I try to explain why I think Christians should not just avoid socially unjust actions (like support for laws that restrict people unnecessarily) but should actively fight attempts to do so, I must explain the theological framework or viewpoint that supports that conclusion -- not just the Biblical verses, but the method of thinking about and understanding those verses is important.
Other Christians have different theological approaches. Biblical literalism, fundamentalism, anything goes-ism, personal-relationship-with-Godism...and so forth. We just don't see it the same way.
And we're all Christians. At least I think we meet the basic criteria of taking Jesus to be our Lord and Savior.
So, I talk about what I think Jesus was trying to tell us. I hope people will agree not just to my interpretation, but to the path I stumbled through to get there.
But if they don't, we're likely to just glare at each other and distrust each other's methods and not, I think, have an open dialog.
However... I do think that it's possible and desireable to serve as an example of a Christian who DOES NOT think Christians should fight against gay marriage. I'm happy to serve as an example of a believer in basic principles, not literal words. I'm not happy trying to convince others that I'm right, though. I don't want the responsibility for their souls. They have to decide for themselves. And that's the message too.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I can understand, but my interpretation comes straight out of literal verses in the Bible. The commands to love your neighbor as yourself, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., to turn the other cheek and give he who takes your coat your cloak as well are all literal parts of the Bible. They are just ignored by the many of Christians.
The essence of Christ's message is not complicated. It's there in black and white. It's just that it's very hard to follow. The problem is that many people have eschewed the parts that call for a life of constant hard choices or seeing even those who hurt you as your brother in favor for those thigns that allow them to take the much easier path that they are inclined to anyway.
A true reading of the Bible presents what I've said as pretty clear standards on whcih to measure your behavior. The tragedy of a large part of contemporary (and historical) Christianity is that it has often abandoned these standards in favor on ones much more base. No matter how well it conforms to other standards of their religion, behavior motivated by hated or fear or anger should never be regarded as righteous by any Christian. But this standard is often not even applied, let alone given the paramount importance it should have.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep... it's not that you don't have Biblically supported reasons for your stance, of course. The problem is that you have selected the pieces that support your view -- at least from their perspective. They'll go get verses from Leviticus, Paul, whereever, to support the opposing opinion. All of it is "Biblical."
quote:The essence of Christ's message is not complicated. It's there in black and white. It's just that it's very hard to follow. The problem is that many people have eschewed the parts that call for a life of constant hard choices or seeing even those who hurt you as your brother in favor for those thigns that allow them to take the much easier path that they are inclined to anyway.
The essence is clear. It's a problem if you take it and ignore the rest of the Bible. It's also a problem if you are forced to reconciling it with the rest of the Bible.
What you are saying is that you are "Christ-centered" I think. Maybe that's not the right word. You give greater emphasis to the "red letter" parts of the Bible (things Jesus actually said) and the stories about Jesus' life. I think that's a reasonable thing to do.
But many people do not. And they arrive at Biblically-supported conclusions that are very different from those that what I'm calling a Christ-centered approach would seem to lead to.
NOTE: I'm concerned about using "Christ-centered" as a term. I can't think of a better one, but the point is that there are varying degrees of emphasis on Christ's message and life. From "that 's the only part I pay attention to" to "It's equally important as every other word in the Bible."
posted
Oh yeah Bob, I do totally get where you're coming from. Remember the Paul thread we had a while back? I think Paul was, taken in context, a pretty good guy, but I find him taken out of context a pretty darn bad thing.
My stance is an interpretation, not a literal reading. The thing I was sort of take issue with was the idea that it relied on interpretation outside of what was said in the Bible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. See, mine does. I take Jesus at his word and apply it to situations He never addressed.
It's a general principle that I try to use to guide me in everything -- when I'm doing it "right" anyway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wonders what "The Squicky Book of Bob" would read like.
Or would it be: The Book of Bob- the New Squicky Version translated from the original tounges?
AJ
(Oh and I'm wondering what Squick thinks about red letter bits about how anyone who looks at a woman with lust in their eyes has committed adultery and fleeing to the hils during the end times) (in good fun... you don't actually have to answer)
posted
Banna, I have a very strange and constantly shifting understanding of Christianity or really any religion. I'm not a Christian by any standard that nearly anyone would recognize, but I do have a lot of respect for many of the underlying principles there. Also, as a former serious Christian and someone who is fascinated by the history and undertands how fundamental the theology is to the development of the western psyche, I've put a lot of study into it.
In this specific case, if I wanted to, I could use the liberal Christian interpretation of Jesus saying that looking at someone through the lens of your own desires and turning them into an object is both unfair to them and breaking your marriage vows to your spouse. But I don't need to. I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, but then I think Jesus (or what the report of what he said has been translated to say) is wrong here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grin, that's fine. I know fundamentalists who are "red-letter" people, and when I was young it always struck me that the "red-letter" Jesus they claimed was quite judgemental bloodthirsty at times despite his overriding message. AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
couldn't have said it better myself. I salute you Vana, as both a Christian and as an American.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I had to pick one of the many first-page gay marriage threads, so I picked this one.) I don't know how familiar people are with the rights accorded to a couple when the government recognizes their union. Here's a sampling:
quote:Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; Appointment as guardian of a minor; Award of child custody in divorce proceedings; Beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; Burial of service member's dependents; Certificates of occupation; Consent to post-mortem examination; Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property; Criminal injuries compensation; Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee; Disclosure of vital statistics records; Division of property after dissolution of marriage; Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; Funeral leave for government employees; Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes; Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; Inheritance of land patents; Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; Legal status with partner’s children; Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; Making partner medical decisions; Nonresident tuition deferential waiver; Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; Notice of probate proceedings; Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; Proof of business partnership; Public assistance from the Department of Human Services; Qualification at a facility for the elderly; Real property exemption from attachment or execution; Right of survivorship to custodial trust; Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; Right to change names; Right to enter into pre-marital agreement; Right to file action for nonsupport; Right to inherit property; Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act; Right to support after divorce; Right to support from spouse; Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; Rights by way of dour or courtesy; Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; Sole interest in property; Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications; Spousal immigration benefits; Status of children; Support payments in divorce action; Tax relief for natural disaster losses; Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; In vitro fertilization coverage; Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.Â
Do you think a gay couple doesn't need these benefits and protections? Doesn't deserve them?
My sister is getting married next year. She loves her fiance, and has been with him for nine years. She doesn't plan on having children (she's 33). One of the reasons she decided to get married is that the federal benefits gained are the kind you can't create on your own.
I want to get married one day. It's that childhood dream you keep in your heart. There's a good chance I'll be able to marry. If I find the right man, we could choose to walk down to that courthouse and get the papers signed.
But I might not. See, I'm bisexual. It's something I've begun to accept as who I really am. I'm in a relationship with another woman, and really happy. We are everything I've ever had in a straight relationship. Comfort, caring, stability, joy, love, and more. But the government doesn't want to recognize this relationship. Doesn't want to give me support. And worse yet, over 13 million Americans voted against giving me that kind of support.
--------- Look at it this way. We protect the rights of millions Americans in the workplace. If someone gets injured at work, they have a recourse. The law protects them. Should we ever vote to deny those protections from someone because we don't like the company they work for? After all, it's as simple as getting another job, right? You could feel smug in your actions, proud of making The Right Choice. Perhaps you find the company distasteful, their actions immoral. But don't forget that each and every person affected by that vote has been let down. You had the opportunity to protect and secure them in ways that so many other Americans enjoy. Instead, you shut the door.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler, this list is great. It helps emphasize the legal nature of the rights in question. It's imperative to get people thinking of the dual nature of marriage (civil/spiritual) in order to gain acceptance of equal civil marriage rights.
posted
That certainly puts the lid on the notion that it is not a civil matter. It is clear that this is a subject that we have every right to address as a matter of law.
That is a heap of goodies for us to throw about glibly.
posted
Yes, it's a "is a heap of goodies" of to be denying someone for no good reason, isn't it?
First categorization, Sara, is who bears the cost of each benefit and who bears it. I'm sure we can quibble about assignments to different categories, but here's a first cut:
Benefits that cost the government money (but are already offered to 90% of the population Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; Burial of service member's dependents; Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee; Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; Exemption from conveyance tax; Funeral leave for government employees; Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes; Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; Nonresident tuition deferential waiver; Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; Public assistance from the Department of Human Services; Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; Spousal immigration benefits; Tax relief for natural disaster losses; Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.
Benefits that don't increase costs to anyone Certificates of occupation; Consent to post-mortem examination; Disclosure of vital statistics records; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; Inheritance of land patents; Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; Qualification at a facility for the elderly; Real property exemption from attachment or execution; Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Benefits that save the government money by making more efficient proceedings Appointment as guardian of a minor; Award of child custody in divorce proceedings; Beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property; Division of property after dissolution of marriage; Legal status with partner’s children; Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; Making partner medical decisions; Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; Notice of probate proceedings; Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; Proof of business partnership; Right of survivorship to custodial trust; Right to change names; Right to enter into pre-marital agreement; Right to inherit property; Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; Rights by way of dour or courtesy; Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; Sole interest in property; Status of children; Support payments in divorce action;
Benefits paid by criminals or tortfeasors Criminal injuries compensation; Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Benefits that cost someone in the private sector money (but are already offered voluntarily to 90% of the population Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; Right to file action for nonsupport; Right to support after divorce; Right to support from spouse; In vitro fertilization coverage;
Much of the cheaper benefits arise because a party can be identified without litigation or searching. I know this saves money in legal proceedings. I assume it saves money in medical situations where someone needs to give consent or sign for a patient.
I love the lawyerly mind -- very precise and methodical. My friend Christine (an MD/JD) said once that she always relaxed when she spoke to another lawyer, even if they were on opposing sides. You knew you could get something done.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:BC: Let us instead look at only things that were done, "to ease suffering" and have caused more, prolonged or increased suffering.
quote:GWB, 2003: And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country. Your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
--------------------------------
quote:BC: ... all human beings need to be treated with compassion
quote:GWB 2003: The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. ... This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted and defend the peace...
quote:Analysis of recent report: The results of the research by this team have surprised many. The researchers estimated that there were 98,000 more deaths in the 18 months after the invasion than there would have been if Iraqis had died at the same rate as during the 15 months prior to invasion.
--------------------------------
quote:BC (regarding socialized medicine): ...before we quadruple the the size of our government and give it access to our most intimate details....
quote:GWB 2003:To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era.
quote:link: ...the 9-11 attacks led to the creation of the Homeland Security Department... some conservatives question whether a massive new federal bureaucracy is the best way to fight terrorism. ... Federal spending is not just increasing in the areas of defense and the war on terror; unfortunately, all federal spending has been increasing rapidly. ... United States government spending has now topped $20,000 per household, a post World War II record.
quote: By the following August, the plague had spread as far north as England, where people called it "The Black Death" because of the black spots it produced on the skin. A terrible killer was loose across Europe, and Medieval medicine had nothing to combat it.
In winter the disease seemed to disappear, but only because fleas--which were now helping to carry it from person to person--are dormant then. Each spring, the plague attacked again, killing new victims. After five years 25 million people were dead--one-third of Europe's people.
Even when the worst was over, smaller outbreaks continued, not just for years, but for centuries. The survivors lived in constant fear of the plague's return, and the disease did not disappear until the 1600s.
quote: but as time passed, the living conditions for the majority improved (Given-Wilson 5). Eighty percent of the English population consisted of laborers, tenant farmers, and their families. With the decrease of population, the existing farms had very little help to employ. The landlords were forced to pay higher wages to their employees and accepted lower prices for their goods because of the reduced demand for their products (Ziegler 233). Also due to the decrease in population, farmers were forced to farm in enclosed areas instead of arable farms (Given-Wilson 39). This was significant due to the fact that it restricted the area that could be used for farming and profitable crop growth. However, it had little effect for the basic reason that there were very few people to provide for or to trade with. This switch to enclosed farms is just one of the many noticeable changes not only on society, but also on how the land was proportioned and divided among people. The long-term significance of the Black Plague was the improvement of material wealth for those that survived the pestilence
Ah. So are you saying that the US invasion of Iraq was not an example of an effort to alleviate suffering that unfortunately created a great deal more suffering? Or are you saying that with the correct POV, one can deplore such instances when they are perpetrated by the liberal domestic social agenda, but applaud them in the case of Iraq?
Maybe Iraq is just a simple case of, to make an omelet you've got to break a few eggs? And it's okay, because...... because why? Because the man pulling the levers is guided by traditional religious values? Yes, that must be it.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's saying that it's okay to kill most of the population of Europe if it would make the survivors wealthier.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the drowning man said to the Titanic, "that's quite a list you got there."
Um, I hate to ask, but is it okay to read a little sumpin' sumpin' into the fact that you mention "vigorous sex" and "wrestling" as equally effective cures?
posted
Until you wrestle (at some level above fooling around) you will never understand that sex is but a trifle. Perhaps there are other experiences that have the same high plane intensity. But wrestling is the only one I know that surpasses sex. Some of my friends cheer rock climbing, one likes fishing better, but if sex is your best experience then you share a failing with many and it is a shame.
posted
Hmm...that is perhaps the most personally revealing post I have ever read on Hatrack.
Since sex for me is all about loving another human being, whereas wrestling is presumably about competing with another human being, I have to claim that sex is by far the superior activity.
Have you tried it with another person? You might find out that it's a LOT better than wrestling.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a passably decent wrestler in high school and college, and have had a fair bit of sex since then as well. As much as I enjoyed wrestling, I'm afraid that it doesn't actually compare favorably to even mediocre sex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
