Printable View
Ahhhh..... But that wouldn't give the gay rights activists the opportunity to foxx with the system.... which is what their goal is.... troublemaking over discourse and detente.... :rolleyes:Quote:
But please, lets leave the word marriage out of it and both parties will be happy.
IMHO...that would bring forth the difference between Homosexuals/Gays and "Fags".Quote:
Ahhhh..... But that wouldn't give the gay rights activists the opportunity to foxx with the system.... which is what their goal is.... troublemaking over discourse and detente....
Ever listen to Chris Rock ;)...don't agree with him much but he does make some really good points...sometimes.
i dont want to go back and argue anything else because ive made my points, but i do want to say something about this:
yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But should our country be ran by a few men's and women's opinions on god? Hrm..Quote:
And if its not a civil right, it damn sure should be.
I disagree that homosexuality should be a civil right, because homosexuality is an abhoration in the eyes of God. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my belief.
i understand the whole "freedom of religion not freedom from religion," thingy. but why isn't it freedom from religion? We should not have a predomintantly muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish, etc executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government. If Bush is going to advocate something, or preach against it, at least don't ****ing say "well jesus told me to so im going to."
How uncomfortable does that make a great percentage of the world? The US president basing his policy on what he learned in sunday school. I don't care if its kerry, bush, nader, sharpton, whoever. its bullshit, and i intend to help stop it.
Why not call it marriage? The word "marriage" is not something exclusive to religion as far as I know.
"Holy matrimony", now that's something else. That's a religious term, and is reserved for religious weddings. They're not looking for religious weddings, are they?
But if the word marriage really is the point: make up a new word for it, vote for it, and get it over with.
Heh heh...right on! ;)Quote:
Do you notice how much more civilized "conservative on conservative" argument is here that "liberal on conservative"
Ok, I'll respond to this:
with this:Quote:
So you can lay out demonstrably how two gay people being married "affects the wellbeing" of anyone else in this world.
I'm inclined to agree with Cyb. If they make it their own thing, then my trying to do anything more on that would be me unfairly subjecting my values on them. It's legally applying a religious term to it that I have issue with. Fine, let them have their union, just keep the religious institution of marriage out of it. Isn't this where liberals usually scream "seperation of church and state"?Quote:
I don't care much of what they do, as long as they don't call it Holy matrimony
Eh...That would be a rather difficult claim to make on my part at best. I'm just pointing out that the difference in belief is on a very fundamental level.Quote:
is that because I don't share your core values and morals that I have none or that mine are inferior to yours.
Touche, I'll give ya that one. I didn't see that in my initial reading of your viewpoint. Outside of legal matters though, on a personal level, I try to go beyond that and try and influence people not to detrimentally effect themselves either. Remember that those of my faith are taught to "love people" -- something many of use sadly fail to do and is lost under layers of religious zealotry.Quote:
I want them to be happy without detrimentally affecting others
From the perspective of the outsider -- yes. From my perspective -- no, as it's not contrived in the first place. So, depends on who's eyes you're behind.Quote:
You want them to comply with your contrived sense of decency
Then where did it come from?Quote:
The word "marriage" is not something exclusive to religion as far as I know.
The word itself? Who knows... wasn't invented by whoever wrote the Bible, that's for sure :pQuote:
Then where did it come from?
Latin maritare, meaning "to marry, to wed"... before that? Who knows... Sanskrit probably... before that... who knows...
Hmm...You're starting to step off onto ground that I've been curious about for some while...
Marriage has been a religious ceremony for as long as we know it, adopted as a legally binding union by government. It's hard to deny marriage is religiously rooted, I think.
But this brings up a question, and hopefully I can pose this without going too far off-topic -- If you don't adhere to any sort of faith, and thus no concept of one soulmate, what point is there to marriage? Isn't it just a pointless rule to force your loyalty to one person? Why one partner? Why not lots of partners? That's always puzzled me a bit...
Just curious pondering on that latter thought.
I respect your opinion EROK, and you make a good point. I look at it this way. Our laws are based upon Christianity, and I do not see how the implementation of these laws, based upon Christianity, are detremental to our Great Nation.Quote:
yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But should our country be ran by a few men's and women's opinions on god?
Christianity has never been about feeling comfortable when you are living in Sin. I could easily sink into Yoga, Killing Infidels, become a Porn star, or child molester and probably convince myself that everything is good. That is until I hear someone talking about how my lifestyle is sinful, then I start to feel uncomfortable. I chalk this up to God trying to impress upon these people that their lifestyle is wrong and that they are feeling uncomfortable for a reason.Quote:
How uncomfortable does that make a great percentage of the world? The US president basing his policy on what he learned in sunday school.
When I fail in the eyes of God, I feel uncomfortable too.
I've been in this debate a few times before, and so far I see that it all boils down to this:
A) You believe in God, and are against homosexuality, or
B) You do not believe in God, and are fine with it.
A) Thinks A is right, and
B) Thinks A is wrong.
Any arguments we throw out are thus based on A or B.
So, we're at a gridlock of opinion, and the only further you can go with it is to open a dialogue into apologetics, which doesn't apply here.
I have a "Marriage License", to "solemnize the Rites of Matrimony". Nothing religious about it: the ceremony was performed by a judge. The thing seems to be though that the "value" of the document is the same as the value of a marriage license issued by a "Christian minister/priest, Jewish Rabbi, a person who is an officer of a religious organization,..." (as it says on the document)..
And that's the entire problem, imo... most countries differentiate between the two: you marry for the church, you marry for the law, or you do both of them. A marriage for the church has no "legal" value in most countries (at least the ones who differentiate between church and state), and vice versa (simple example: divorced people aren't allowed to remarry for the Roman Catholic church - because it's a sin, I guess :rolleyes: - meaning that without separation of church and state, they would never be able anymore to get the same rights as "first-married people". The state does allow it, solving that problem.)
And faith comes in many forms... not all people withot "faith" are immoral... I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate ;)