|
Lately the gay marriage debate has flared up in a few threads, but I think we might find there is some common ground where an amicable solution could be found for both.
Postion 1 is that homosexuals deserve the same protection and priviledges under the law for our relationships. As it stands just inder 10% of us are gay, and 4% of all adopted children in america are in same-sex homes. And we believe we deserve the same legal protection as marriage, and many of us believe that calling it something seperate is a form of segregation. Many of them see the oposition as nothing but bigots for opposing such unions. (However I do not believe they are bigots)
Position 2 is that marriage has been defined by god as a union between a man and woman only. That to change that definition is to take away some religious significance from marriage. That if we allow same sex unions that more religious rights could be eroded such as what has occurred in Massachusettes. And they believe it isn't a matter of discrimination many believe that civil unions should be allowed to all same sex couples. There are also those who believe homosexuality is (As Leviticus 20:13 calls it) an abomination unto god, but this is a minority of the religious organizations in the United States.
So I raise the question is there common ground. I believe there is room for compromise, the most improtant point for homosexuals is legal rights and priviledges for their relationships, not what they call it and not where you go to get married. My thought to the religious viewpoint is that if compromises were made and you places of worship and organizations protected under an ammendment would it be made acceptable?
P. S. Remain civil, try not to attack the opposing position, as soon as you attack someone else gets defensive and no one listens to what you have to say. Above all have an open mind with empathy. Try and picture yourself in the other persons shoes. Debate is healthy, debate sharpens each others minds and viewpoints, and allows us to better understand. So that being said lets begin.
My concern with "common ground", such as we have in some EU countries, like the UK, where there is a total equality of legal rights between gay couples and marriage, but a gay union is not a marriage is that it produces a legal fallacy: why having 2 different legal figures ("marriage" and "the other gay union") if they are identical in granting rights and obligations?
Imagine you have a contract of property granting you ownership of a house with all its rights and obligations, but you are not entitled to be "owner", you are called "something else". That would not be discriminating, but it would be weird, and legally pointless. And ad hominem legislation (or ad group in this case) is always patchup work, a clean legal code or constitution should be universal and inclusive, as opposed to particular and exclusive.
|
|
I believe that there is plenty of room for common ground and compromise. The problem arises when parties on both sides take an all or nothing attitude. Clearly, the Constitution does not make the issue any eaier, as it provides conflicting rights to balance. The First Ammendment says that the government can't force churchs who oppose gay ,marriage to perform or recognize them. However, the Fourteenth Ammendment makes it clear that the rights that the goverment extends to married couples must be extended to all. It's an interesting debate to watch, but it's one that will not be solved until both parties agree that we can compromise on the subject.
Edit: Several conservative voices have come out as of late and advocated some sort of civil union legislation. One of the most interesting was Jon Huntsman Jr. who is the governer of a very religious and very conservative state. He was also on the short list of people who Time Magazine believed could challenge Obama in 2012. They noted that it was interesting that Obama nominated him to be Ambassador to China shortly after Gov. Huntsman announced he would not seek reelection as governer.
|
|
My concern with "common ground", such as we have in some EU countries, like the UK, where there is a total equality of legal rights between gay couples and marriage, but a gay union is not a marriage is that it produces a legal fallacy: why having 2 different legal figures ("marriage" and "the other gay union") if they are identical in granting rights and obligations?
Imagine you have a contract of property granting you ownership of a house with all its rights and obligations, but you are not entitled to be "owner", you are called "something else". That would not be discriminating, but it would be weird, and legally pointless. And ad hominem legislation (or ad group in this case) is always patchup work, a clean legal code or constitution should be universal and inclusive, as opposed to particular and exclusive.
The simplest solution to this is to get the government out of the buisness of sanctioning marriage all together.I have two friends who are straight. They have been living together for years and have three children. However the man in the relationship refuses to get married because Marriage has a bad track record in his family. If we were to develop some sort of universal civil union that applied to both straight and gay couples then He would benefit from that system. As it is now, even if we granted gay couples the same rights as married straight people, we would still be discriminating against millions of straight people ho have chosen to live together, but for waht ever reason, don't get married.
I believe that there is plenty of room for common ground and compromise. The problem arises when parties on both sides take an all or nothing attitude. Clearly, the Constitution does not make the issue any eaier, as it provides conflicting rights to balance. The First Ammendment says that the government can't force churchs who oppose gay ,marriage to perform or recognize them. However, the Fourteenth Ammendment makes it clear that the rights that the goverment extends to married couples must be extended to all. It's an interesting debate to watch, but it's one that will not be solved until both parties agree that we can compromise on the subject.
I agree. As David said, the "all or nothing attitude that seems to dominate the debate must be put aside if there is to be a resolution. I'm not comfortable with telling homosexuals they can't get married, but I'm also not comfortable telling people how to worship or run their churches. In my opinion, this whole problem arose because legal rights were granted to parties who entered into a religious union. If those two things hadn't been mixed, we wouldn't be in this mess. Since we are, both sides have to ready to give if we are ever to get out again.
|
|
In the 1950's and 1960's the civil rights movement did not move to get everything at once. Instead they pushed for equal rights on specific issues. They also got whites involved in the debate on their side. I remeber Robert Moses saying that getting whites involved in heping the civil rights movent changed things In his words it went from being about "whites vs. Negros to being about rational people vs. irrational people."
In the gay marriage debate, this means two things. One, decide what rights you think are important right now and focus on changing the laws in those areas. Two, find some prominant straight people who can be presented as rational voices who support gay marriage or civil unions and put them in the public spotlight. Say your reason for wanting to have gay marriage is so that you can have a voice in medical decisions for your partner. Rather than fighting a battle for an abstract concept, like marriage, make the fight about that specific right. I believe that you will find that there is much less opposition when you focus in on what you want specifically, rather than in the abstract.
I also think that we need to stop trying to make the debate about one side vs. another. I can speak from experience to the fact that not every religious person is against gay marriage. I also remember MSNBC doing a report on a gay group in California who worked to get Prop. 8 passed because they, as gay people, oppose gay marriage. Yet when it is discussed, it is always presented as every religious person want to stop this and every homosexual person is for it. The issue is not as cut a dry as most people suppose and until we stop treating it like it is, we are never going to understand it.
|
|
Now something I would really like and if a religious conservative would happily oblige, is a complete (or as complete as possible) a rundown of that positions concerns. I tried to do justice to it in th opening post, but lets face it I am not a religious conservative and probably didn't do justice to the position. I hope that with such a rundown we could have a better understanding of their concerns.
P. S. Again that would not be an opening for someone to attack the viewpoint of the conservative it's just necessary to understand the concerns behind it if there is to be a resolution of some sort.
We as a people cannot classify marriage as a religious union otherwise we could not divorce, as divorce is not permitted.
|
|
[IMO] Not every religious person wants to ban gay marriage, to even think that would be foolish. The problem is that the only opinion we get from religious insituitions are from the people who want to ban gay marriage and see GLBT "burn for their sins". [/IMO]
I think that there are 2 questions we need to find answers first here.
The first question is that do the US States have the right to ban "civil unions" (Not marriage as defined by the church)giving GLBT the same rights as straight married couples w/o them getting a traditional marriage? Aren't GLBT guaranteed the right to their own pursuit of happiness under the Constitution?
Second, do US Citizens even have the right to vote on FORCING religious institutions to accept/do marriages for GLBT when some obviously don't want to? Is that within my right to force someone to adhear to my beliefs?
|
|
In the gay marriage debate, this means two things. One, decide what rights you think are important right now and focus on changing the laws in those areas.
The right to be considered 'family' for the purposes of visiting loved ones in the hospital, IMO, should be at the top of the list, as well as the right to have custody of a child raised by the other partner (gosh, I hate that word, partner) instead of automatically losing it to some biological parent that long ago surrendered custody to the now-deceased parent.
Stories about people being barred from seeing their loved ones of *decades* as they die in the hospital, or having the kids that they have raised taken away because the biological parent passed away are grotesque.
There was a fairly appalling story back in the day about a fireman / cop couple who were raising the fireman's son together. The fireman died in the World Trade Center, and the cop attempted to keep custody of the boy he'd helped to raise, but the fireman's homophobic sister, who had disowned her brother for being gay, swooped in and was automatically awarded custody, since she was family. She wouldn't even let the cop *see* the boy, despite the boy testifying that he didn't know the woman and wanted to stay with his 'other dad.'
In college, a friends brother committed suicide because of his mother's reaction to his coming out. At his funeral, she said she was glad he was dead, because he was no son of hers. When human beings marry, we *choose* our new family, and, for the rest of us, this new family may serve as a replacement for a biological family that has rejected us for whatever reason. Gay people should have the same right to marry that Larry King had to marry his 20-something love-muffin, Rush Limbaugh had to marry (and divorce) his three beards, Britney Spears had to have a 6 hour marriage to a friend 'just because she wanted to see what it was like' and Pam Anderson has to marry dudes so that she can make sex tapes with them and divorce them.
The whacky bit is how a *true* homophobe would be absolutely *for* gay marriage. Let them marry each other, fail to breed and go extinct! Don't *encourage* them to 'live in the closet' and marry unsuspecting straight people and make more gay babies! What's more scary, a world where there are two chicks walking down the street holding hands, or a world where your wife might be secretely not attracted to you at all, your entire marriage has been a lie and she's passing on 'teh gay' to your children?
*Not* allowing and encouraging gay marriage is the only real 'threat' to heterosexual marriage!
Funny those I normally oppose have come out in support of Gay Marriage. Dick Cheney just said in a recent news interview he fully supports gay marriage as does Megan McCain daughter of Senator John McCain. That was the weirdest news I heard all day.
Will you marry me?
|
|
Funny those I normally oppose have come out in support of Gay Marriage. Dick Cheney just said in a recent news interview he fully supports gay marriage as does Megan McCain daughter of Senator John McCain. That was the weirdest news I heard all day.Will you marry me?
No way Dicky Boy! I saw him first!
A couple of thinks to say:
I'm not sure whether they should be allowed to enter holy matrimony.
And frankly, I don't give a s&!$. And neither should any nation that isn't a religious dictatorship.
Call it what you will (I couldn't care less about names), but I think gay couples should be able to receive the same benefits by law than straight coupoles. Whether they can have a church wedding or not isn't my concern.
But a legal "marriage" (if the church complains that it should not be called marriage - fine. But then nothing the state does should be called marriage, since Christian marriages don't allow divorce, so if it can be divorced, it's not a marriarge, anyway) should be possible regardless of the genders of those involved.
Sure, they cannot breed, but there's a lot of straight couples who cannot breed, either, because one or both are infertile. Are they forbidden to marry?
Let the church be the church, and the state be the state. But the church should have no influence whatsoever over laws.
So my vote goes to an emphatic YES to legal gay marriages, and an emphatic I DON'T GIVE A DAMN to religious ones.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I agree with a lot of what is being said above. My stance: the government should issue "Legal Union" licenses that state that as of a certain date the two parties, being consenting adults of legal majority do join in a "Legal Union" until such time as they decide to end said "Legal Union".
This grants any couple the rights formerly associated with a legal marriage. In return, any church, temple, or legally recognized holy group can hold a "marriage" ceremony, but unless said couple also has procured a "Legal Union" license, their "marriage" is not considered legally binding.
Let religion be religion and keep it out of the State. Please.
|
|
My stance: the government should issue "Legal Union" licenses
Yup, even if you get a church wedding, you have register stuff at city hall for it to be legal in the eyes of the state. The gay couple should be able to get the legal part, and, if they are members of a Unitarian or Wiccan or similarly progressive church that is willing to give them the religious ceremony, then more power to them.
If the Catholic church doesn't want to take 'gay money' to pay for fabulous wedding ceremonies conducted by men in dresses who eschew the company of women, fine, they can continue shutting down churches due to financial shortfalls and a shrinking parishioner base. Overspecialize, and fail to thrive in a changing environment. It's evolution 101, and whether they believe in it or not, it's killing faiths, governments and individuals that fail to adapt and grow just the same.
Let religion be religion and keep it out of the State. Please.
As someone who has a few religious bones in his body, the concept of someone claiming to be religious and *wanting* to have their religion interwoven with politics is alien to me.
I don't want government regulating my faith, and that's exactly what happens when government and religion get in bed together.
That's the marriage I'm against, the forbidden union of politician and preacher, as it damages both government and faith.
"Render unto Caesar what Caesar is due." Not, 'Get yourself elected and impose Shaira law!'
And the people who want religion and politics to be intertwined? They're the ones screaming loudest about 'churches being *forced* to marry gay couples,' which would never happen in a country that respects the seperation of church and state, the country that *they are trying to destroy.*
And the people who want religion and politics to be intertwined? They're the ones screaming loudest about 'churches being *forced* to marry gay couples,' which would never happen in a country that respects the seperation of church and state, the country that *they are trying to destroy.*
That's a false argument on their part as well. No church *has* to marry you. Straight or not. Also, if you don't take part in their pre-marriage courses they wont marry you.
|
|
And the people who want religion and politics to be intertwined? They're the ones screaming loudest about 'churches being *forced* to marry gay couples,' which would never happen in a country that respects the seperation of church and state, the country that *they are trying to destroy.*
I here that charge a lot and I'm curious about it. Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Please give examples if possible. I want to understand where you are coming from, but as a person of religion I don't look at things the same way you do. Please help me understand.
|
|
And the people who want religion and politics to be intertwined? They're the ones screaming loudest about 'churches being *forced* to marry gay couples,' which would never happen in a country that respects the seperation of church and state, the country that *they are trying to destroy.*That's a false argument on their part as well. No church *has* to marry you. Straight or not. Also, if you don't take part in their pre-marriage courses they wont marry you.
Actually there is a lawsuit in New Jersey right now that is arguing that in fact churchs do have to marry you, if they offer that service to the general public. So, unless a church were to restrict wedding services to only members of their congregation, which very few do, the outcome of the New Jersey case could very well force churchs to marry gay couples should gay marriage become legal.
No way Dicky Boy! I saw him first!Funny those I normally oppose have come out in support of Gay Marriage. Dick Cheney just said in a recent news interview he fully supports gay marriage as does Megan McCain daughter of Senator John McCain. That was the weirdest news I heard all day.Will you marry me?
I'm a mav-er-ick!
|
Funny those I normally oppose have come out in support of Gay Marriage. Dick Cheney just said in a recent news interview he fully supports gay marriage as does Megan McCain daughter of Senator John McCain. That was the weirdest news I heard all day.
The funnier part is everyone's hero, Obama, is opposed to gay marriage.
Politics are funny.
|
|
Obama is in favour of civil unions, repealing DOMA, getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and is against Prop 8. I think his credentials on this issue are pretty strong. It'd be nice if there were more Republican's like Meghan McCain (Or John McCain, for that matter). But sadly, they aren't the ones in charge of the party. Rush Limbaugh is.
|
I think the main criticism of Gay Marriage is that once you let Gays Marry and Adopt children, you might as well allow Human Cloning to end Organ Trafficking and Animals for organs science.
There is always something they dont want to happen, but if it does it might make things better for a lot of people and push others aside as irrelevent points of view.
Here is a little test: ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST SUSPENDING THE NATION STATUS OF THE USA SO EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CITIZEN AND ANYONE CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think the main criticism of Gay Marriage is that once you let Gays Marry and Adopt children, you might as well allow Human Cloning to end Organ Trafficking and Animals for organs science.
There is always something they dont want to happen, but if it does it might make things better for a lot of people and push others aside as irrelevent points of view.
Here is a little test: ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST SUSPENDING THE NATION STATUS OF THE USA SO EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CITIZEN AND ANYONE CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT?
I'm sorry, but I haven't heard this voiced as a concern over gay marriage. Can you provide some citations?
Don't *encourage* them to 'live in the closet' and marry unsuspecting straight people and make more gay babies!
Silence you! We need more gay babies. I am tied of powder blue and pink. Babies need more fabulous colors.
|
|
I here that charge a lot and I'm curious about it. Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Please give examples if possible.
I found this example a post below.
Actually there is a lawsuit in New Jersey right now that is arguing that in fact churchs do have to marry you, if they offer that service to the general public.
It's crazy. The government can't force a *church* to perform an act in violation of their faith. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry people for various faith-based reasons (something which King Henry 'got around' by murdering his wives so that he could remarry, since the church forbade divorcing and remarrying!). If the church builds a hospital or a school, and runs it as a for-profit business, then that's a different situation entirely, but even in that case, Catholic hospitals are allowed to refuse to provide abortions. The government generally does a halfway decent job of keeping out of matters of faith, which, IMO, is the way it should be.
I don't want a politician, whether their name is Obama or Bush, telling me what sort of faith I am required (or allowed) to practice. I certainly wouldn't want Tom Cruise to get into politics and start peddling Scientology from his new position!
Some laws happen to match Biblical commandments. Murder is illegal, and God says 'Thou shalt not kill.' I don't see that as religion creeping into the secular sphere, because allowing murder is socially disruptive and any secular nation that wants to survive needs to put a stop to that sort of behavior. God also says, 'No other gods before me,' and that is *not* illegal here in America, a nation founded by people freeing persecution and oppression in Europe, so while some argue that America was 'founded on Christian values,' that's not entirely accurate. Some Christian values happen to be good, common-sense values that any nation would do well to adopt. The fact that some of those 'Christian values' are also Buddhist values doesn't make American a 'Buddhist nation,' either, just one that has a system of law designed to provide for it's citizens.
I want to understand where you are coming from, but as a person of religion I don't look at things the same way you do. Please help me understand.
While I'm not sure that I would call myself a 'person of religion,' since I'm not ordained or anything, I am religious (although it's entirely possible that you don't look at things the same way I do, if not for that specific reason!), I just don't want my government imposing religious values on me, even if they happen to be identical to my own values, because I recognize that other American citizens have the right to believe differently than I do, and I am not so gripped with the sin of pride as to think that my beliefs should be imposed upon all Americans. Faith is, and should be, a choice. A surrender to the values of that faith. If someone grows up in a society where they had no choice, or even, as in Saudi Arabia, feared being beaten to death by 'church police' if they didn't display the appropriate behaviors, is there commitment to their faith worth anything? Or is it just fear? If free will is given to all, not by man, but by God, isn't the society that allows clergymen to impose their beliefs on their countrymen denying those countrymen the use of God's gift of free will, to make the ultimate choice of whether to be one of the faithful?
When the religious sphere intersects with the secular sphere, we end up with nations such as Saudi Arabia, imposing Shaira law upon their citizens. Both the faith, and the nation, suffer when this happens, IMO.
It seems to be happening even today. Prominent religious figures (some boasting 100,000s of listeners) get up on the stage and say that America 'deserved' 9/11 or that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment, the more they politicize their faith, the more people pull away from them, and not just from them, but from faith itself. By sullying the good name of faith, they are causing the new generations to disassociate from *all* principles of faith, which, IMO, is a shame, since every faith contains some incredibly good advice and counsel and can provide comfort and support, as well as motivate people to acts of charity, forgiveness and respect.
But when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Sen James Inofe and Rep Michele Bachman (figures who stand quite prominently at the intersection between faith and politics) serve as outspoken voices stating that 9/11 and Katrina were God's punishment for sin and gays and whatever, it just tarnishes all of the transcendence and glory of faith, besliming it and making the person who was on the fence about the value of faith in their life shy away, and become more secularized, more inclined to shut their ears to those men and women of the cloth who may have a more wholesome message of hope. That's a loss, both to the individual and to the faith as a whole.
Churches are closing. Congregations are shrinking. And I don't think it's that 'Americans are immoral' or that we 'deserve to be punished,'
I think it's that people are being driven away by the shrill extremists and alarmists, whose occasionally contradictory (and all-too-often completely antithetical to the teachings of Christ) political views end up making their statements seem hypocritical and mercenary. It's too easy for the channel-surfer to hear these words, from their bully-pulpit of cable news, and map them over to *all* religion, and not just dismiss them as the words of a particularly partisan political hack that, no matter how many millions of dollars (or listeners) they have (or claim), are not prophets and do *not* speak for God.
Instead of thinking, 'Jerry Falwell is a gruesome cautionary tale of how *not* to live by the teachings of Christ,' they think, 'Note to self; Religion? Freaky.'
So, that, in far too many words, is what I meant by faith and government being bad for each other.
Obama is in favour of civil unions, repealing DOMA, getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and is against Prop 8. I think his credentials on this issue are pretty strong. It'd be nice if there were more Republican's like Meghan McCain (Or John McCain, for that matter). But sadly, they aren't the ones in charge of the party. Rush Limbaugh is.
Or Dick Cheney for that matter. Out of curiosity, how is Rush Limbaugh in charge of the Republicans? That's kinda like saying John Stewart's in charge of the Democrats. He's an entertainer, he holds no elected office, and most folks take what he says with a BIG grain of salt (as they should). Of course they should be doing the same with John Stewart....
To the issue: split the word 'marraige' off of legal civil partnership unions, make marraige a strictly religious affair conveying no extra legal rights, make everyone have to get a 'civil union' and then go on to 'marraige' in the church of their choice if they so wish. Don't discriminate against people's private union arraingements. I also include polygamy/polyandry in this, as long as all members are consenting...
If we spent less time worrying about how our neighbor conducts his affairs the world would be an easier place to live in.
|
|
If we spent less time worrying about how our neighbor conducts his affairs the world would be an easier place to live in.
'Good fences make good neighbors.' is a popular saying up here in Live Free or Die-land, where staying the heck out of your neighbor's affairs (and certainly their bedrooms!) is considered a gentlemanly virtue. I'm not sure the average person saying it knows where the quote is from, but it's a nice sentiment.
If we spent less time worrying about how our neighbor conducts his affairs the world would be an easier place to live in.'Good fences make good neighbors.' is a popular saying up here in Live Free or Die-land, where staying the heck out of your neighbor's affairs (and certainly their bedrooms!) is considered a gentlemanly virtue. I'm not sure the average person saying it knows where the quote is from, but it's a nice sentiment.
Live free or die land's favorite poetical son, Robert Frost, of course ...
EDIT: Helps that I sell fences for a living ..LOL
|
|
Or Dick Cheney for that matter. Out of curiosity, how is Rush Limbaugh in charge of the Republicans? That's kinda like saying John Stewart's in charge of the Democrats. He's an entertainer, he holds no elected office, and most folks take what he says with a BIG grain of salt (as they should). Of course they should be doing the same with John Stewart....
If only Cheney had said something in support of Gay Marriage when he was VP. Might of had a serious impact.
As for Limbaugh leading the Republicans, it's simple. The Republicans have no clear leader at the moment. Steele keeps getting sidelined, Jindal is too young, Gingrich might be a choice, but he's not that powerful. Palin is in contention too. But the only one who all Republicans bow down to is Limbaugh. Heck, Steele criticised him then a day later was forced to apologise. The Democrats, on the other hand, do have a leader. A certain Barack Obama.
Anyway, New Hampshire's passed a law that allows Gay Marriage. 44 to go!
|
|
I here that charge a lot and I'm curious about it. Could you explain what you mean by this statement? Please give examples if possible.I found this example a post below.
Actually there is a lawsuit in New Jersey right now that is arguing that in fact churchs do have to marry you, if they offer that service to the general public.
Except that I have never advocated the mixing of religion and the state. In fact, earlier in this very thread I advocated for an expanded seperation of religios and civil recognition of a couple's status. Therefore I am not an example of what you were saying.
It's crazy. The government can't force a *church* to perform an act in violation of their faith. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry people for various faith-based reasons (something which King Henry 'got around' by murdering his wives so that he could remarry, since the church forbade divorcing and remarrying!). If the church builds a hospital or a school, and runs it as a for-profit business, then that's a different situation entirely, but even in that case, Catholic hospitals are allowed to refuse to provide abortions. The government generally does a halfway decent job of keeping out of matters of faith, which, IMO, is the way it should be.
Except in the particular case in New Jersey, the church did rent it's reception hall out to people not of their faith. A lesbian couple wanted to rent the reception hall for their commitment ceremony and the church refused on the grounds that they were opposed to gay marriage. The couple sued under the grounds that they provided services to the general public the laws in New Jersey prevented the church from refusing to allow the commitment ceremony. Therefore you are right, technically. The church would not have to marry gay couples, they would just have to stop renting their reception hall to people. Either way, it does fundementally dictate to the church how they can use their facilities.
If only Cheney had said something in support of Gay Marriage when he was VP. Might of had a serious impact.
Well, he came out and said it now, and better late than never. He probably was constrained by his president. After all, despite conspiracies to the contrary, he was only the VP. VPs usually have to defer to the wishes of the president.
As for Limbaugh leading the Republicans, it's simple. The Republicans have no clear leader at the moment. Steele keeps getting sidelined, Jindal is too young, Gingrich might be a choice, but he's not that powerful. Palin is in contention too. But the only one who all Republicans bow down to is Limbaugh. Heck, Steele criticised him then a day later was forced to apologise. The Democrats, on the other hand, do have a leader. A certain Barack Obama.
True enough as far as Democrats go, but it would be more factual to say 'the Republicans have no clear leader' than say they are following Limbaugh. He is merely a talk show host. Calling him the leader of the Republican Party is disingenouous at best. Personally I hope Newt gets the nod in 2012, since he at least stands for a smaller government. Several prominent Republicans have criticized Limbaugh openly recently, a far cry from 'bowing down'.
Bill O'Reilly explains it better than I do on David Letterman's show: >LINK<
Anyway, New Hampshire's passed a law that allows Gay Marriage. 44 to go!
Yes, kudos to the Granite State. We Massachusetts folk will show our solidarity by flooding your shops with business after our legislature ups our sales tax ....
[...]There are also those who believe homosexuality is (As Leviticus 20:13 calls it) an abomination unto god, but this is a minority of the religious organizations in the United States.
Well most christians don't have any moral issus on eating figs even though christ cursed the fig tree, etc. , etc.
And as for jews (..and muslims and christians): I got this from internet. I don't know who Dr. Laura is, but it's fun none the less.For those of you that are not following the recent controversy that has to do with Laura Schlessinger: she is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show.
Paramount Television Group is currently producing a "Dr. Laura" television show. Recently she has become a convert to Judaism, and now she is Ba'al T'shuvah. Recently, she has made some statements about homosexuals that has caused the Canadian anti-hate laws to censure her....The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the internet.....
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.
24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Stories about people being barred from seeing their loved ones of *decades* as they die in the hospital, or having the kids that they have raised taken away because the biological parent passed away are grotesque.
Yes, grotesque, horrible, barbaric. Call it want you will. It's just wrong.
On the topic marry / divorce. As an ex-catholic I say the Pope can just go and f*@/8 himself and the catholic church stink. The whole practise is full of exceptions and hypocrisy.- You can't marry if your a priest, but you can become a catholic priest if you're married (my aunt is married to one, so I should know).
- You can't divorce, but you can have your marrige nullified.
- You can't use condoms if you think it's a sin, but if you don't agree with the pope on the condom issue and you don't think it's a sin you can use one.
By the way. I don't dislike all catholics. My girlfried is catholic and some of our friends are. But I don't like the church and don't like the pope.
|
Regardless of nation I do not believe that same sex "marriages" should be legal. Marriage was and is a sacrament of the catholic church. It has been adopted by christian religions and later in civil law.
I do believe in same sex and "normal" (male/female) civil unions. The term marriage has been "bastardised" into common culture. The term marriage means different things to different people. I understand that language evolves but we as a society, globally, confuse many issues by forgetting where terms come from and what they mean.
To get around this issue the only reasonable action would be to remove the term "marriage" from civil law and society. Put marriage back into Christian faith and away from politics (EDIT: and popular culture).
I am not attempting to offend but remain objective.
|
|
Stories about people being barred from seeing their loved ones of *decades* as they die in the hospital, or having the kids that they have raised taken away because the biological parent passed away are grotesque.Yes, grotesque, horrible, barbaric. Call it want you will. It's just wrong.
On the topic marry / divorce. As an ex-catholic I say the Pope can just go and f*@/8 himself and the catholic church stink. The whole practise is full of exceptions and hypocrisy.
- You can't marry if your a priest, but you can become a catholic priest if you're married (my aunt is married to one, so I should know).
- You can't divorce, but you can have your marrige nullified.
- You can't use condoms if you think it's a sin, but if you don't agree with the pope on the condom issue and you don't think it's a sin you can use one.
By the way. I don't dislike all catholics. My girlfried is catholic and some of our friends are. But I don't like the church and don't like the pope.
I certainly understand you concerns but the Pope does not pass judgement on you. There is a difference between religion and faith.
For my part, I am entirely disinterested in religious marriage. I don't care one whit whether a priest, imam, auditor, monk, llama, mullah, or any other ecclesiastic is involved to applaud, object, or for that matter to slice open a bull and have its blood rain down.
One should be married when one gets the marriage license from the state. Anything that happens subsequently in a religious location of elsewhere is immaterial. Those ceremonies deserve neither legal standing nor legal prohibition. They are simply irrelevant to the civil law, which is that body of law under which we are all governed regardless of religion or lack thereof.
But the fight is not really about that, despite attempts to rebrand it as such. The fight is about civil marriage, which the state created and absolutely has no business denying to anybody on any religious grounds if it intends to allow any kind of meaningful freedom of religion whatsoever. You cannot be free to choose the religion of your choice, or not to choose the religions you reject, if the observances of one or many faiths are imposed on you through the force of the civil law. The state granting marriage rights to same-sex couples no more infringes on anybody's freedom of religion than its allowing mosques and churches to both function is an affront to the worshipers who consider each the one true house of worship.
Is that common ground? That's all I've asked, and I've been certainly among the least friendly same-sex marriage advocates on the boards. Since the other guys have eagerly proclaimed, both on these boards and elsewhere, that they intend to refuse civil marriage to same-sex couples, I don't count it as common ground at all. I am left with no morally acceptable compromise.
Regardless of nation I do not believe that same sex "marriages" should be legal. Marriage was and is a sacrament of the catholic church. It has been adopted by christian religions and later in civil law.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong on the facts. The Romans had marriage centuries before the Catholic church did. Marriage is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi before there was a Rome. Marriages have taken place in every culture across the world, with and without any species of Christianity involved.
Marriage may very well be a sacrament of the Catholic Church, but that is not all that it is any more than the Last Rites make death the exclusive property of Catholicism.
Marriage was and is a sacrament of the catholic church. It has been adopted by christian religions and later in civil law.
You make it sound as the catholic church is the first church. Orthodox Christianity would disagree.
Do you mean marriage was created by the catholic church? A lot of religions would disagree. A lot of cultures would disagree.
"Marriage was and is a sacrament", perhaps. But things change. According to the (last?) Pope there no longer are burning fires in hell. Things change, but somtimes not fast enough.
I certainly understand you concerns but the Pope does not pass judgement on you.
Well he doesn't know me, does he?
But some of the stuff the Pope has said has really made me upset. So what he thinks or doesn't think of me is highly uninteresting.
There is a difference between religion and faith.
True.
Faith might be OK, religion seldom is. IMHO.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong on the facts. The Romans had marriage centuries before the Catholic church did. Marriage is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi before there was a Rome. Marriages have taken place in every culture across the world, with and without any species of Christianity involved.
Marriage may very well be a sacrament of the Catholic Church, but that is not all that it is any more than the Last Rites make death the exclusive property of Catholicism.
Yes!!!