quote:First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum you've seen where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: bb: I always thought of you as a good man, BB. Even though we disagree =)
You up for reviving the Hatracker guild once The Burning Crusade comes out Pix?
In all seriousness though, though we disagree I have always felt you were a very decent human being, bordering on plain awesome on occasion. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum you've seen where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality.
Dag was this supposed to be sarcastic or agreement or what?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was supposed to emphasize that it has happened before, but that the original poster did not read other threads that have been polite.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I didn't. Mostly I have started staying out of these threads because when people have been making argumenst other than, "God says so," the arguements that I've seen have been on a par with that one. I really was impressed not to see it here.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had a dollar for every time someone has said, some variant of "I'm so impressed, this is the first civil thread on this topic I've seen" in reference to a gay marriage thread on Hatrack . . .
. . . I'd have a lot of dollars.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The key phrase is 'American principles,' which I've stated I don't have a problem with breaking. As a Mormon, my first duty is to God, not my country.
Alright. Let me ask a different question:
Your duty is to God over country, which means you have your own PERSONAL set of laws, in which you would violate national law if it meant following God's Law, right?
So where is your line between God's law being something you've chosen to follow, and your need to impose that law on others?
I think that is my concern. You can follow whatever personal law you want in private, so long as it doesn't involve anything really destructive to public safety, in which case I think you'd rightly be arrested. But when you start to push your religious agenda on others, and I wonder where in the Bible it says to do that, that's when I get nervous. But the entire process is selective, which gets into my larger problems with modern religion, but that's neither here nor there. So how do you decide when to leave God's laws private for your own following and when to press them upon others?
Separately, I wonder how religious folk justify ignoring large swaths of the Bible for whatever reason, the most likely being they are antiquated, and leaving some parts be (haven't gotten to them yet?) and trying to legislate others into law. When is it you all get together to have meetings on what chapter of the Bible needs to intrude on secular law next?
Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr- Has anyone explained the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to you? I think it would answer almost all of your questions.
I'm going to leave it to someone who's actually Christian to do so, though.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Last I checked God didn't ask anyone to involve themselves in legislation in a secular state. The Bible wasn't written with a secular state in sight, which makes any decisions to do so not from scripture, but from personal choice, so I'm asking where he draws the line.
blacwolve -
No, I don't know the difference. I haven't been to Bible school in a decade and remember nothing from it, other than a verse of scripture here and there. But if it will answer any of my questions I'd be glad to hear it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Last I checked God didn't ask anyone to involve themselves in legislation in a secular state. The Bible wasn't written with a secular state in sight, which makes any decisions to do so not from scripture, but from personal choice, so I'm asking where he draws the line.
This, of course, assumes that the Bible is the only way that God tells people to do things.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine with me, I'm still asking. If someone on this board wants to tell me that God appeared to them in a vision, or a dream, or they heard a voice, and told them to write their congressman about SSM, then fine. I'm still asking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the Bible never speaks to same-sex marriage at all, anywhere, and if anyone tells you it does, ask them to point out the verse...they won't be able to. It also never speaks to lesbianism. The word homosexual does not appear in the Old Testament at all, there is no word in ancient Hebrew which translates as homosexual, so if you see the word homosexual in the Old Testament anywhere be wary of that particular translation.
Some Christians interpret certain passages in the Bible as being entirely anti-homosexual, however, depending on how you read those passages and the context of the time, they can be interpreted as being against certain types of behavior, i.e. rape, prostitution and pedophilia.
A good discussion of these interpretations can be found here.Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone on this board wants to tell me that God appeared to them in a vision, or a dream, or they heard a voice, and told them to write their congressman about SSM, then fine. I'm still asking.
Since you asked:
I believe the men who lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are prophets today just as as Moses, Isiah, and the apostles were in their time.
Some things these prophets have said on the subject:
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.
quote:"We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
"As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
quote: So how do you decide when to leave God's laws private for your own following and when to press them upon others?
When I vote, or otherwise exercise my citizenship, I consider what I'm supporting in light of my religious beliefs.
quote: Separately, I wonder how religious folk justify ignoring large swaths of the Bible for whatever reason, the most likely being they are antiquated, and leaving some parts be (haven't gotten to them yet?) and trying to legislate others into law. When is it you all get together to have meetings on what chapter of the Bible needs to intrude on secular law next?
Second Tuesday of every month. Now that Mormons have achieved 'possibly Christian-like' status from the other Christian religions, they've even given us a couple seats in the back.
They STILL only serve coffee though...
quote: Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
I'll answer as if I think you're seriously asking:
Slavery: anti-slavery
Death penalty: depends on the crime/evidence. Mostly anti.
Stoning: There are much better ways to have fun, don't you think?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
I'll answer as if I think you're seriously asking:
Slavery: anti-slavery
Death penalty: depends on the crime/evidence. Mostly anti.
Stoning: There are much better ways to have fun, don't you think?
Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyrhawn was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
Speaking as a Christian, I hear those arguments all the time and I find them frustrating. It's no wonder people get upset with the "God said so" argument. God said a lot of things that modern Christians tend to ignore. Why is it ok to point out certain things and say, "We don't need to follow this rule, but everyone has to follow that one." And yes, it's a serious question. I'd like a serious answer.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyhrwan was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
But Scott already, in this thread, explained why he thinks it's wrong, and it had nothing to do with an interpretation of Old Testament verses.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyrhawn was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
As Dagonee and Scott have already replied, people who have such a difficulty understanding this might not be as informed about Christianity as they think they are. That sound snarky and I suppose it is, just a little...but the truth is, those particular oft-raised objections (shellfish, stoning, etc.) have been repeatedly answered. Soundly answered too, within the confines of religions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread for now. Since people are making assumptions both about my Christianity and my education (I was a religion major in college) and I would prefer not to be the cause of this thread degrading into snarky comments. I may return later, and I will probably keep reading responses, but don't ask me any direct questions, at least for now, as I won't be posting in this thread.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was careful to use the phrase might not be for a reason, andi330. I'm sorry to have given offense, but it really does seem elemental to me.
Not all people believe that Paul in the primary authority in the Bible. Not all people-particularly on this board-believe that the Bible is something unopen to interpretation, and in fact many people have different translations.
So I choose to stand by my statement that yes, yes it has. And by my other statement, because your post where you said the following:
quote:It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
You did not appear to be aware that there was a pretty fundamental entire set of reasons answering this apparent contradiction.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
The quote in the wiki article doesn't include the part later in the chapter where sexual morality is expressly included in the portion which must be followed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Rakeesh was a little obnoxious in his post, what's the point in declaring statments and conclusions about the Bible at the same time you say you aren't willing to discuss them?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1 Timothy 1:8-11
quote: 8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Romans 1: 26-32
quote: 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
I do not understand why Christians find it so hard to understand that other Christians interpret the Bible differently than they do. And further, that differing interpretations are not a sign that the other person is ignorant, evil, or hypocritical, but that they, like you, are simply doing their best to live according to God's laws.
I'm not Christian, gay marriage is by far the most important issue to me in the upcoming elections, yet I can still do this. If you profess to follow the same God, the least you can do is treat your fellow followers with respect.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
New American Standard Bible, I said at the beginning, but probably should have written it out.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, to blacwolve: I left, as I stated, because I did not want to be a party to the degeneration of this thread, and I was annoyed enough at the time, that I had a hard time typing my last message without calling anyone names, or being excessivly rude to people. I felt that it was better at the moment to simply stop responding in this forum, than to start behaving badly.
Second, I do not have a problem with people who have different interpretations of the Bible than I do. You can believe whatever you want. I have a problem with voting laws that promote intolerance (which the upcoming South Carolina law and many others do) into action.
I have a problem with that, because of the phone call I received my sophomore year in college, telling me a friend of mine had been murdered because some homophobic...person, saw him in a gay bar, followed him home, beat the crap out of him and shot him.
States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are relegating them to second class people, and it sends the message to the bigots and the hatemongers, that it is ok to commit these types of crimes. States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals (as the upcoming South Carolina law will do) have higher rates of hate crimes against members of the GLBT community.
I learned, the day that I got that phone call, that no matter what my religious beliefs are about homosexuality and/or homosexual "acts" that the secular law must protect the rights of the memebers of this community. Secular social justice must be preserved, and these laws do the opposite of that.
Whenever one of these laws comes up to be voted upon, I think of David. I think of the fact that they never convicted the man who did that to him. I remember the lesson that his death taught me. That my beliefs, whatever they may be, must not interfere with other's basic human rights. Voting for a law that promotes intolerance encourages violence against people of the GLBT community, that may not be the intent of most of the people voting for that law, but it does.
So, I know which way I'm voting next Tuesday. It will be my prayer this evening, that no one in this thread, or on this forum, ever has to learn that lesson the same way I did.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually did ask Scott those questions honestly. And no, I've never heard a real explanation on what is, and isn't to be taken seriously in the Bible. Like I said before, It's been more than a decade since I was actively involved in a church, I don't remember much, other than a verse of scripture here and there, thus I really don't claim to be super informed at all. And I don't claim to be really informed at all about nuance between the different denominations of Christianity.
So no, to this date, and having read 75% of this thread, I still don't know for sure why it's okay to target homosexuals for legislation to ensure they aren't given equal rights with the rest of the American citizenry, but leave hundreds of other Biblical crimes unmentioned.
It's discussions like this that give me sympathy for those trying to whitewash God out of our mainstream culture. For while I don't think that is necessary personally, I also think that the intrusion of the Bible into the lives of the people who don't want it there is our first step towards a watered down Western Sharia law.
What I wonder, is what will they focus on after they've guaranteed the subjection of gays to second class status? What's next? Will the next thing affect me personally? I speak out in favor of civil unions because I don't think the state has any right to intrude on the personal lives of American citizens in such a manner. But there's a larger issue at work here: What's next? I have no proof, just a feeling, but that feeling is that with a large, hell, MASSIVE fundraising and political machine at work, this nation's Christian community isn't going to just go home, dust off their shirts and say "Mission accomplished." They'll keep the ball rolling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and no, I've never heard a real explanation on what is, and isn't to be taken seriously in the Bible.
I've explained why I feel the way I feel about SSM. In this particular case, I believe that what God wants outweighs the arguments that people have made here regarding equal rights.
quote:my beliefs, whatever they may be, must not interfere with other's basic human rights. Voting for a law that promotes intolerance encourages violence against people of the GLBT community, that may not be the intent of most of the people voting for that law, but it does.
Your premise relies on two things: that marriage is a basic human right and that voting against SSM promotes intolerance and violence. I don't accept either.
quote:What I wonder, is what will they focus on after they've guaranteed the subjection of gays to second class status? What's next? Will the next thing affect me personally? I speak out in favor of civil unions because I don't think the state has any right to intrude on the personal lives of American citizens in such a manner. But there's a larger issue at work here: What's next? I have no proof, just a feeling, but that feeling is that with a large, hell, MASSIVE fundraising and political machine at work, this nation's Christian community isn't going to just go home, dust off their shirts and say "Mission accomplished." They'll keep the ball rolling.
The irony here, Lyrhawn, is that doomsday scenarios of every shape and form have been vomited out by those who stridently oppose SSM. "If SSM is legitimized, it's only a matter of time afore they're raping children legally on the streets."
That sort of thing.
I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction.
I feel the same way about YOUR brand. Although, you actually CAN sell yours as speculative fiction...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this particular case, I believe that what God wants outweighs the arguments that people have made here regarding equal rights.
I think this is the reason I find it so ghastly: perfectly decent people can say "I believe that what I believe God wants outweighs human rights."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are relegating them to second class people, and it sends the message to the bigots and the hatemongers, that it is ok to commit these types of crimes. States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals (as the upcoming South Carolina law will do) have higher rates of hate crimes against members of the GLBT community.
I (personally) agree with the first, but am aware that mine is not the only perspective out there. I couldn't disagree more with the second. I don't believe for a second that bigots and hatemongers today need an SSM law in any way to do what they do. I have no idea on the third, because you're making an unsupported statistical statement.
quote:Second, I do not have a problem with people who have different interpretations of the Bible than I do. You can believe whatever you want. I have a problem with voting laws that promote intolerance (which the upcoming South Carolina law and many others do) into action.
The second statement makes the first statement untrue, or at least meaningless. What good is belief if it cannot be acted upon? And you have a problem with acting on a certain belief, so in my opinion you don't really mean it when you say, "You can believe whatever you want." What you mean is, "You can believe whatever you want, until you screw up. Then I have a problem with it."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quoted it. Although of course he was careful to throw in the word "arguments," to make it seem as if it was the argument and not the right itself that he was disputing. But as he's said in the post before mine, he doesn't actually consider it a right at all; it's not the argument that's underwhelming in that case.
--------
quote:I don't believe for a second that bigots and hatemongers today need an SSM law in any way to do what they do.
In the same way that I believe the legality of abortion makes abortion more common and socially acceptable, I believe laws specifically restricting the rights and privileges of homosexuals discourage their social acceptance and promote discrimination against them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think that violence against homosexuals -- specifically, bigotry and hatemongering -- is a product of discrimination against them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just like not all battery becomes murder, not all discrimination becomes violence. This is in fact one of the reasons I end up defending-or at least, not attacking-opponents of SSM, because they routinely get lumped in with homophobes and hate-crimers. I'm not suggesting you're doing it, or even that it's been done in this thread. Just that I've seen it before and it's frustrating.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The second statement makes the first statement untrue, or at least meaningless. What good is belief if it cannot be acted upon? And you have a problem with acting on a certain belief, so in my opinion you don't really mean it when you say, "You can believe whatever you want." What you mean is, "You can believe whatever you want, until you screw up. Then I have a problem with it."
Why does a belief have to be forced upon others to be considered "acted upon"? Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
Also, this country already makes a distinction between holding a belief and intruding on the rights of others with it. It's perfectly legal to be racist, for example- one can hate on other ethnicities all one likes in the privacy of one's own home. But turn that opinion into open discriminatory action, and then we have a problem. It's not "until you screw up." It's "until expression of your beliefs infringes upon the freedoms of other people."
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
Actually, polygamy can be multiple women or multiple men. Or both. Anyone who uses the term for multiple women only needs a dictionary.
Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands. Polygamy is multiple spouses.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
Actually, polygamy can be multiple women or multiple men. Or both. Anyone who uses the term for multiple women only needs a dictionary.
Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands. Polygamy is multiple spouses.
That is all.
I realize this, but in many instances people only think of polygamy in terms of multiple wives. I mean, I don't think the polygamous Mormons (or whatever the proper term may be) would be okay with multiple husbands.
quote:Why does a belief have to be forced upon others to be considered "acted upon"? Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
Also, this country already makes a distinction between holding a belief and intruding on the rights of others with it. It's perfectly legal to be racist, for example- one can hate on other ethnicities all one likes in the privacy of one's own home. But turn that opinion into open discriminatory action, and then we have a problem. It's not "until you screw up." It's "until expression of your beliefs infringes upon the freedoms of other people."
For someone who believes marriage is an activity between a man and a woman, they can just as justifiably say it is you forcing your belief on them, Tarrsk. I do not believe this myself-I believe the government should be in the business of civil unions only, which should be permissible between men and men, women and women, men and women, and frankly multiples of each.
Just because I believe that, however, does not mean I don't respect those who don't share my belief. Some people believe they have a duty to God to try and mold their society to better suit God's laws. You do not share this belief, and in fact believe those people shouldn't do that.
I wish you and others would just admit that openly, instead of persisting in insisting that you respect people's beliefs. I don't even have a problem with people not respecting the beliefs of others. There are a whole slew of beliefs I have no respect for whatsoever.
You're totally mistaken about racism as well. One is not restricted to hatred in the privacy of one's own home.
The long and short of it is, you can insist all you want that marriage isn't just something between a man and a woman, but this will do nothing to persuade those who feel otherwise. Continuing to insist otherwise, while also claiming to respect the beliefs of others, is frankly contradictory.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
When Mormons are baptised, we promise to stand as a witness of Christ and his gospel at all times. Voting our consciences is part of that; we are encouraged by our modern prophets to review the issues in light of our religion and vote for candidates and laws that best reflect our understanding of good government.
That's why.
More generally:
Doctrine and Covenants 88:81
quote: Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.
quote:For someone who believes marriage is an activity between a man and a woman, they can just as justifiably say it is you forcing your belief on them, Tarrsk.
I disagree with "just as justifiably". Sure, they can say what they want, but that doesn't mean it follows any logic or reason. The clear and important difference is that "forcing" my belief on them changes their life in only the most minute and oblique way, whereas their forcing their belief on me has direct and dramatic effect. To say "just as justifiably" in this context is to betray a remarkable ignorance of the issue.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please bear in mind that I support the idea of civil unions, and believe it should have been implented long ago, and right now in fact, with the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities as marriage.
Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way. I don't think I'm qualified to judge what beliefs and actions affect others to what degree, until I can find out on an individual level myself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think I'm qualified to judge what beliefs and actions affect others to what degree, until I can find out on an individual level myself.
I think I'm qualified to empathize with other people and to think things out to their logical conclusion. To do less than this is to abdicate all responsibility for participation in society. I emphatically disagree that the two "forcings" are equal in the direct affect they will have on the respective "victims", or even anywhere close to equal. If someone wants to put forth a valid and supported counter-claim, I'm more than willing to discuss this with them, but it is silly to just assume equanimity where none has even been claimed by the anti-SSM crowd, much less demonstrated.
The VAST majority of anti-SSM people I've talked with will readily admit that allowing two gay men to marry will not significantly change their personal lives. The most I've heard is that it might be more difficult to convince their children of the evils of homosexuality when they are faced with apparent examples to the contrary (or perhaps more from their point of view "examples incorrectly held up as desirable/normal"). Can you honestly say this compares in kind with the legal difficulties involved in foreseeing and taking steps to protect all the facets of a "marriage-like" relationship and just hoping such steps aren't challenged or thwarted perhaps in the most emotional and errevocable ways?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
You might not read this response but oh well. I think you misunderstand Paul's purpose. He is stating that if you are so obsessed about circumcision then you must follow that logic to incorporate the ENTIRE Law of Moses. You can't say Jesus is the author of our salvation, AND The Law of Moses must also be strictly observed. The mechanic of salvation must exist within Jesus' atonement or else The Law itself.
Paul was arguing that many Jews within the church were trying to renew circumcision as a requirement for Christian membership, and that, in Paul's opinion was a mistake. Paul was certainly not arguing that belief in Part of Jesus' words denotes obedience to all, thats kinda obvious. You can't seriously argue that Jesus was right SOME of the time, without negating the divinity of his nature.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The irony here, Lyrhawn, is that doomsday scenarios of every shape and form have been vomited out by those who stridently oppose SSM. "If SSM is legitimized, it's only a matter of time afore they're raping children legally on the streets."
That sort of thing.
I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction.
I feel the same way about YOUR brand. Although, you actually CAN sell yours as speculative fiction...
I said right in my statement that I had no proof of it, it's just a feeling. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, I'll be the first to admit it. That isn't by any means by chief argument. It's just something in the back of my mind.
But it's funny you should bring up your side of the fear argument. I had a discussion with someone at work today who said he disagrees with SSM because next, people will want to marry their horses. He said the 10 commandments should be displayed anywhere, be it the steps of the Capitol or the lobby of a Supreme Court building. He said the bells that call Muslims to pray in Hamtramck shouldn't be allowed every morning.
Is there a large group of people out their clamoring for civil unions with horses? This country has a separation of church and state for multiple reasons, one of those being the founding fathers didn't want the state meddling in the church as they had in Europe, and another being, as they specfically did not make Christianity the religion of the land, that this was to be a land of religious freedom, with no state sponsorship of any one religion over another. Otherwise we might as well be Turkey, with a "public" secular state but a real favoritism towards a single religion.
Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott? You're saying that sexually assaulting children in the street is the next step after civil unions, the legal status of which you admitted to not being against. I find that reprehensible, and biggoted.
The guy at work accused me of being for "people having the freedom to do pretty much anything they want." It's people accusing me of things like that, that make me wonder if I would have been a Republican in some ways 20 years ago, when Republicans were about keeping the government out of their personal lives. I think limiting the rights of Americans has to have a damned good reason. "Because God told me to," isn't good enough. Trumping human rights and constitutional guarantees is something we've fought for more than 200 years to make sure NO ONE would have the right to do. Civil rights advocates have fought for a century in this country in the face of religious conservatives trying to keep a status quo they found favorable and sanctioned by God, so you'll forgive me if I don't exactly trust their track record on the issue of who should and shouldn't be allowed to have equality.
It's ironic that so many people point to the founding fathers and the constitution and say "they were Christians, they never imagined we'd have a whitewashed state with NO religion at all." And yet the founding fathers are the ones who codified "All men are created equal," "endowed by their creator with inalienable rights," as a part of our national heritage as well as the basis for our society and legal system.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott? You're saying that sexually assaulting children in the street is the next step after civil unions, the legal status of which you admitted to not being against. I find that reprehensible, and biggoted.
He quoted that statement as an example of "this type of fear-mongering." You know, the type he despised.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
