Same sex marriage: what is it really?

Blackdog said:

I am, but I also am not afraid to stand up for what I believe even if you and others feel "it's none of my business" is a good excuse. :lol:

Click to expand...

We used to have a fairly good understand of what was our business in this country and what wasn't. One of the pitfalls we've encountered is this idea that what everyone else does is your business and you have a say in what people should be allowed to do when they are not infringing upon the rights of others. Now we have to deal with all sorts of people running to government to attempt to get their morality forced on everyone else instead of just saying, "it's a free country". Less and less free, which is not a productive direction to go.

I just saw the updated poll results, and am quite disgusted. How the hell is gay marriage a special right?? Straight people can marry whoever they want. But if a gay person wants to do the same, they're asking for something extra? That's just retarded, I'm sorry. People need to worry about themselves more.

CriticalThought said:

I'm of a libertarian mindset and I believe in God, and yet I do not find anything in the Bible which would lead me to believe that God would be against same sex marriage. The arguments against homosexuality were Man's law, not God's law.

Click to expand...

All I can say is you are reading a different Bible, as it is pretty clear.

CriticalThought said:

But of course I have my interpretation and you have yours. I do not put the Bible above God because to do so would be to have another god before God. That aside, what right do you have to impose your particular interpretation of what you believe the Bible says is moral and immoral? And at what point does reason step in and you ask yourself what harm does homosexuality really cause to society as compared to other activities like smoking?

Click to expand...

You are correct we do have different interpretations. You wish to leave out huge parts of the Bible and it's teachings so it can fit your life style. I on the other hand take it, the whole Bible as Gods word. That is where the difference lies. I am not putting the Bible above God, it is his word.

CriticalThought said:

Technically, marriage has been redefined numerous times in history. Currently, the definition you support is that an individual can marry as many people of the opposite sex as they want as long as they are married to only one person at a time. Jesus Christ would most definitely not support the serial monogamy definition of marriage that our country currently embraces.

Click to expand...

Wait, you mean the same guy who said...

Mark 10:6-9 "6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

I mean he was on the subject of divorce, but it's pretty clear on what marraige is.

CriticalThought said:

And yet I do not see you striving against that definition of marriage, seeking to outlaw divorce and punish adulterers, so I cannot be convinced that you are motivated by religion.

Click to expand...

So because no one has brought it up for debate, even though I have been clear with you and others in debate about those things, my motivation must be something else?

I have been married 1 time and I am still married. I have not cheated and divorce is allowed in the case of adultery. I try and lead by example as the Bible says.

CriticalThought said:

To the contrary, I think you are motivated by an animosity toward what you perceive as the sin of homosexuality, and you have no such animosity towards the sins of divorce or adultery.

Click to expand...

This is not true. But you can think what you like.

Ikari said:

Then how about instead of all these deflections you keep throwing around, you actually back up what you're saying. I have. What I propose does not infringe upon the rights of anyone, in fact it recognizes and respects the rights of others. So you want to talk big and say it's not true. Then prove it. I'm waiting.

Click to expand...

No deflections, read the thread. You keep asking the same questions over again because you don't like my answers. :shrug:

kerussll said:

I just saw the updated poll results, and am quite disgusted. How the hell is gay marriage a special right?? Straight people can marry whoever they want. But if a gay person wants to do the same, they're asking for something extra? That's just retarded, I'm sorry. People need to worry about themselves more.

Click to expand...

You should know that is some lame ass stacking the pole. No one at this web site has voted for that. Except the idiot stacking it.

Blackdog said:

No deflections, read the thread. You keep asking the same questions over again because you don't like my answers. :shrug:

Click to expand...

No, I asked you for proof of degredation of society and morality not based on your concept of your god based on the book you read. You have provided no proof that society would suffer should the right to contract of same sex couples be recognized.

Blackdog said:

You are correct we do have different interpretations. You wish to leave out huge parts of the Bible and it's teachings so it can fit your life style. I on the other hand take it, the whole Bible as Gods word. That is where the difference lies. I am not putting the Bible above God, it is his word.

Click to expand...

I simply recognize the Bible within its historical context. I could no more take it as the "word of God" than I could take the Quran or Book of Mormon as the "word of God" and for pretty much the same reasons. I approach spirituality from an Existential perspective and seek to see what teachings apply to life and which do not. But thank you for sharing. I now understand that you are motivated by a literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

Mark 10:6-9 "6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of this verse. He also said...

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

There are many scholars who think that "eunuch" was often used as synonymous for homosexual and there is evidence to support that view.

And some even go so far as to argue that Jesus affirmed a gay couple...

Good Hope MCC | Jesus affirmed a gay couple. (Matthew 8:5-13) | Would Jesus Discriminate? | Spirituality

Interpretation is certainly an interesting thing.

Is my interpretation a justification of my lifestyle or is your interpretation a justification of your imbalanced animosity? I wonder.

I mean he was on the subject of divorce, but it's pretty clear on what marraige is.

Click to expand...

Is it? It sounds to me like taking a 30 second soundbyte and playing it out of context. I wouldn't accept it with Bush or Obama, so why should I accept it with Christ?

So because no one has brought it up for debate, even though I have been clear with you and others in debate about those things, my motivation must be something else?

I have been married 1 time and I am still married. I have not cheated and divorce is allowed in the case of adultery. I try and lead by example as the Bible says.

Click to expand...

And yet you seek political restrictions against same sex marriage but not divorce or adultery. That is where the dissoance is.

This is not true. But you can think what you like.

Click to expand...

As can you. Isn't freedom great?

Of course, I don't see sin as anything to have animosity towards. That would be as foolish as having animosity towards suffering.

CriticalThought said:

I simply recognize the Bible within its historical context. I could no more take it as the "word of God" than I could take the Quran or Book of Mormon as the "word of God" and for pretty much the same reasons. I approach spirituality from an Existential perspective and seek to see what teachings apply to life and which do not. But thank you for sharing. I now understand that you are motivated by a literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

There is nothing literalistic about my interpretation. Either you accept it as the word of God or not, you don't. So why do you even bother to quote it as something you don't even believe in?

CriticalThought said:

I'm well aware of this verse. He also said...

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

There are many scholars who think that "eunuch" was often used as synonymous for homosexual and there is evidence to support that view.

Click to expand...

Yes it may or most likely does include gays. You should not have left out what he was answering though...

Matthew 19-10 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Pretty clear what he was saying to them.

CriticalThought said:

And some even go so far as to argue that Jesus affirmed a gay couple...

Good Hope MCC | Jesus affirmed a gay couple. (Matthew 8:5-13) | Would Jesus Discriminate? | Spirituality

Interpretation is certainly an interesting thing.

Click to expand...

When it is based on a lie, yes it is.

From your own link...

In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” (See note 18.) Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

To top it off it is a gay church trying to twist what the Bible says...

In 1983 a few Christians founded the Gay Christian Community (GCC) because they felt that there was a need to care for the spiritual needs of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) community of Cape Town since they were made unwelcome in their birth churches.

Not a very reputable source.

CriticalThought said:

Is my interpretation a justification of my lifestyle or is your interpretation a justification of your imbalanced animosity? I wonder.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying this "animosity" when I have none. I don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't want marriage redefined.

Your interpretation is a corruption of God's words to fit your life style.

CriticalThought said:

Is it? It sounds to me like taking a 30 second soundbyte and playing it out of context. I wouldn't accept it with Bush or Obama, so why should I accept it with Christ?

Click to expand...

So again you don't believe, so why do you try so desperately to pervert his teachings?

CriticalThought said:

And yet you seek political restrictions against same sex marriage but not divorce or adultery. That is where the dissoance is.

Click to expand...

Nope. You don't pay much attention to my posts or know me very well do you?

I have said multiple times to you, Panache and others I find the ease of divorce and adultery just as bad, in fact I have stood against all sexual immorality. You seem to want to ignore this.

CriticalThought said:

As can you. Isn't freedom great?

Of course, I don't see sin as anything to have animosity towards. That would be as foolish as having animosity towards suffering.

Click to expand...

Again you don't believe in the God of the Bible to begin with, so why bother?

Ikari said:

No, I asked you for proof of degredation of society and morality not based on your concept of your god based on the book you read. You have provided no proof that society would suffer should the right to contract of same sex couples be recognized.

Click to expand...

It will undermine our right to free speech and religion by making it the official government position that gay marriage is OK. It could be taught in school, and we as parents would have no right to object.

Gay groups have already brought lawsuits against religions that teach against gay marriage, calling it hate speech. Yanking of broadcasting licenses and termination of the tax-exempt status of traditional organizations that object to gay marriage are just a few of the legal threats looming. In Europe and Canada those things are already happening. - Gay, lesbian marriages harm society | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. - Dr. Trayce Hansen's Writings

Same-sex marriage is not and never has been an issue of civil rights. Homosexuals have the same constitutional rights and freedoms everyone in Maine enjoys regarding marriage.

Society has always regulated and limited who it allows to marry, and does so to promote the social goods this institution provides. Each citizen can enter into marriage if they 1) are not already married; 2) are an adult and marry an adult; 3) do not marry a close family member; and 4) marry someone of the opposite sex. - There's lots of proof same-sex marriage will harm the rights of others | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

"Hate-filled, homophobic, narrow-minded and bigoted — those are the labels you'll get. Those of you who live in California, put on your armor," he said, referring to an upcoming ballot measure that would strike down a recent Supreme Court ruling there legalizing gay marriage. - Gay marriage would have long-term societal impacts | Mormon Times

Many articles and many reasons. Some I agree with, some I don't. Either way I am done because I am bored, lol.

Have a good one Ikari. Always enjoy debating with you.

Blackdog said:

There is nothing literalistic about my interpretation. Either you accept it as the word of God or not, you don't. So why do you even bother to quote it as something you don't even believe in?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of valuable teachings in the Bible. I've never been very fond of all or none thinking. I'm a pragmatist at heart, which means I seek ideas which have practical uses and value. Not every idea in the Bible is useful or good but some are quite insightful and useful.

Not a very reputable source.

Click to expand...

My point is that there are several different interpretations. I'm not going to debate you on the Bible since you have already admitted that you take it literally. I cannot reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into to begin with, nor should I try because your beliefs may largely be due to experiences that I do not share. I am simply an Existentialist who explores the present perspectives.

Why do you keep saying this "animosity" when I have none. I don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't want marriage redefined.

Click to expand...

You assume I refer to animosity of individuals. To the contrary, I refer to your animosity towards behavior. Your perspective leads me to believe that you dislike homosexuality, even if you have no issue with homosexuals. I believe the idiom for this is "hate the sin, not the sinner". I find anyone with animosity towards a behavior to be perplexing since it seems rather pointless to me.

Your interpretation is a corruption of God's words to fit your life style.

Click to expand...

I can see how you feel that way from your perspective. I suppose we cannot negotiate our differences. That is a rather frustrating aspect of the human condition.

So again you don't believe, so why do you try so desperately to pervert his teachings?

Click to expand...

Oh pervert? A different interpretation is that offensive to you? I find the depth of emotional attachment you have to your interpretation to be very fascinating. I wonder what experiences in your life have lead to such a fierce adherence. I suppose I will never know.

Nope. You don't pay much attention to my posts or know me very well do you?

Click to expand...

How well can you know an anonymous user on an internet forum?

I have said multiple times to you, Panache and others I find the ease of divorce and adultery just as bad, in fact I have stood against all sexual immorality. You seem to want to ignore this.

Click to expand...

Not at all. How many threads on divorce and adultery have you posted in lately?

Again you don't believe in the God of the Bible to begin with, so why bother?

Click to expand...

By your standard, I could not believe in the God in the Bible unless I accepted your interpretation of the Bible. If I argued that I believed in the God of Bible based on an existential perspective of the Bible, then that would be heresy to you. As such, I have no recourse.

CriticalThought said:

There are a lot of valuable teachings in the Bible. I've never been very fond of all or none thinking. I'm a pragmatist at heart, which means I seek ideas which have practical uses and value. Not every idea in the Bible is useful or good but some are quite insightful and useful.

Click to expand...

I agree.

CriticalThought said:

My point is that there are several different interpretations. I'm not going to debate you on the Bible since you have already admitted that you take it literally. I cannot reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into to begin with, nor should I try because your beliefs may largely be due to experiences that I do not share. I am simply an Existentialist who explores the present perspectives.

Click to expand...

Please I would appreciate you looking closer at my statements...

There is nothing literalistic about my interpretation. - Blackdog

Now I also said I accept it as the word of God, but this does not make my understanding or acceptance literal. For example, I am an old earth Christian who accepts some things said in the Bible were indeed figurative or representative examples etc. In other words, not to be taken literally.

CriticalThought said:

You assume I refer to animosity of individuals. To the contrary, I refer to your animosity towards behavior. Your perspective leads me to believe that you dislike homosexuality, even if you have no issue with homosexuals. I believe the idiom for this is "hate the sin, not the sinner". I find anyone with animosity towards a behavior to be perplexing since it seems rather pointless to me.

Click to expand...

OK I understand where you are coming from but that is not the case. I don't care about homosexuality, lesbianism or any of that as far as that goes. I have no feelings for it either way. I just don't want marriage redefined for a select group or any other reason.

CriticalThought said:

I can see how you feel that way from your perspective. I suppose we cannot negotiate our differences. That is a rather frustrating aspect of the human condition.

Click to expand...

True, I agree. I have enjoyed the exchange either way.

CriticalThought said:

Oh pervert? A different interpretation is that offensive to you? I find the depth of emotional attachment you have to your interpretation to be very fascinating. I wonder what experiences in your life have lead to such a fierce adherence. I suppose I will never know.

Click to expand...

That's kind of interesting. I said "pervert his teachings" not that you are in any way a pervert.

I think in this case a mirror may be in order.

In any case I certainly do hold to my faith and remain true to it. I would not deny that.

CriticalThought said:

How well can you know an anonymous user on an internet forum?

Click to expand...

Buy reading what they have posted and making a real attempt to see what they have said.

CriticalThought said:

Not at all. How many threads on divorce and adultery have you posted in lately?

Click to expand...

Lately? None at all, has not come up. In the 2 or 3 threads in which you and Panacha were in quite a few times. Of course you don't seem to want to remember that?

CriticalThought said:

By your standard, I could not believe in the God in the Bible unless I accepted your interpretation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

You mean you could never be a Christian because you do not accept Jesus as divine or your savior among other things. It has little to do with your interpretation outside of you do not accept the basic tenants of Christianity. I know plenty of Christians who have a really bad understanding of scripture and are still Christians.

CriticalThought said:

If I argued that I believed in the God of Bible based on an existential perspective of the Bible, then that would be heresy to you. As such, I have no recourse.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that would be true.

kerussll said:

I just saw the updated poll results, and am quite disgusted. How the hell is gay marriage a special right?? Straight people can marry whoever they want. But if a gay person wants to do the same, they're asking for something extra? That's just retarded, I'm sorry. People need to worry about themselves more.

Click to expand...

No need to get upset. Like Captain Courtesy said typically the gay RIGHTS polls get SPAMMED and this one is no different. Luckily the OP was smart and made the poll public so you can click on the numbers and see who REALLY voted. Nobody voted for special right.

These are the real numbers:
Special Right - 0
Equal Protection - 30

Blackdog said:

It will undermine our right to free speech and religion by making it the official government position that gay marriage is OK. It could be taught in school, and we as parents would have no right to object.

Click to expand...

Really? If this were true, I'd agree you have rightful grievence. Still I wouldn't say that it's rightful to prevent gay marriage. Rather that accepting it cannot be forced. I am most certainly against thought control. However, I don't believe that would be the case. For instance, homosexuality is legal in general. Do we teach that it's ok and you can't say anything about it? No, there are plenty of people who protest against the "sin" of homosexuality. Even the crazy types like those Westburo Baptist folk. We don't arrest them, nor should we. They get to teach their kids that homosexuality is wrong and that they should fight it. We don't take their kids away. If we legalized same sex marriage, I don't think we'd launch the thought police to go around arresting people who didn't like it.

Blackdog said:

Gay groups have already brought lawsuits against religions that teach against gay marriage, calling it hate speech. Yanking of broadcasting licenses and termination of the tax-exempt status of traditional organizations that object to gay marriage are just a few of the legal threats looming. In Europe and Canada those things are already happening.

Click to expand...

Blackdog said:

- Gay, lesbian marriages harm society | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

Click to expand...

Where have these lawsuits been filed? Who lost braodcasting licenses (if I had my way with the FCC, BTW, it would be nearly impossible to lose your license). If you want to say there will be lawsuits, yes I can see that there would be. It doesn't mean that we'd create the thought police though. We have an open court system and because of that, everyone can bring whatever lawsuit they want; no matter how silly. Hell there's some lady suing McDonald's for putting toys in the Happy Meal. I don't think McDonald's has much to fear. It sucks, but it's part of the open process. And these even goes into the article which tried to highlight the lawsuit against the Boy Scouts. Yes it occured, but they were allowed the ability to discriminate amongst their membership. And since they are a private group, they are well within their rights to do so. Even with a lawsuit, there's no way that we can institute (rightfully) thought control. People will be free to believe as they want, and I will in full support that right. So long as you don't actually infringe upon anyone else's rights, I don't really care what you do. And standing around running your mouth, that ain't enough to infringe on people's rights.

Blackdog said:

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. - Dr. Trayce Hansen's Writings

Click to expand...

I don't see the point of this. In the end, we don't really know what "causes" homosexuality. My thesis adviser has a very good friend, he's an identical twin. Both kids were brought up in the same household. One is straight, married, and happy. The other is gay and happy (despite gay meaning happy). So I don't know if we can really go into what causes homosexuality, so at this point I think it's best just to start at "homosexuals exist".

Blackdog said:

Same-sex marriage is not and never has been an issue of civil rights. Homosexuals have the same constitutional rights and freedoms everyone in Maine enjoys regarding marriage.

Click to expand...

Except that straight couples can marry the person they love, while homosexuals cannot. So there is functional difference. Additionally, the Marriage License is a contract, and the individual has right to contract. You have to use government force to infringe upon that right to keep same sex couples from entering into that contract.

Blackdog said:

Society has always regulated and limited who it allows to marry, and does so to promote the social goods this institution provides. Each citizen can enter into marriage if they 1) are not already married; 2) are an adult and marry an adult; 3) do not marry a close family member; and 4) marry someone of the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

Blackdog said:

- There's lots of proof same-sex marriage will harm the rights of others | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Click to expand...

There were restrictions. Polygamy because that's a measured system. We've seen the effects of polygamist systems, even today in the US when you consider the polygamist cults. The problem there is that the environment is one innately of discrimination and oppression. Women aren't really all that free. A man can have multiple wives, but a woman can not have multiple husbands. There are other effects such as kicking males out of the society to preserve a "proper" number of women folk. Because we've seen this system in action, we can tell how it can and does infringe upon the rights of others. Adults are allowed to marry only (well that's not really the case historically) because that too is a contract thing. Age of consent laws come into play because of our right to contract and the necessity of being able to understand the consequences of it. Close family members are there because of genetic concerns, and that too has been well observed throughout history. The last one is the only one that doesn't have a logical reason against it.

Blackdog said:

"Hate-filled, homophobic, narrow-minded and bigoted — those are the labels you'll get. Those of you who live in California, put on your armor," he said, referring to an upcoming ballot measure that would strike down a recent Supreme Court ruling there legalizing gay marriage. - Gay marriage would have long-term societal impacts | Mormon Times

Click to expand...

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. I mean, people will say all sorts of stuff. Just because some dumbasses will run their mouth doesn't mean that's proper argument against allowing same sex marriage.

Blackdog said:

There is nothing literalistic about my interpretation. - Blackdog

Now I also said I accept it as the word of God, but this does not make my understanding or acceptance literal. For example, I am an old earth Christian who accepts some things said in the Bible were indeed figurative or representative examples etc. In other words, not to be taken literally.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean offense. I simply don't take anything in the Bible literally. For example, most of the New Testament was written decades after Jesus was gone. Given that people distort things days after hearing them, I cannot imagine how much of the original meaning was lost decades after. And of course, the defense that people use to justify taking even parts of the Bible literally is "the Bible says that the Bible is perfect". That kind of circular reasoning is impratical and irrational. I choose to have faith in God, not in a book.

OK I understand where you are coming from but that is not the case. I don't care about homosexuality, lesbianism or any of that as far as that goes. I have no feelings for it either way. I just don't want marriage redefined for a select group or any other reason.

Click to expand...

But then we are back to the dissoance. Would you not want marriage redefined to exclude divorce and to punish adulterers? The current definition of marriage is one of serial monogamy and yet you seem to pretend that you are defending the definition that Jesus envisioned. They are not the same. Jesus probably never envisoined a state endorsed form of marriage with rights and liberties. What I don't understand why you are pretending that the marriage we have now is anything like the marriage in the Bible.

Buy reading what they have posted and making a real attempt to see what they have said.

Click to expand...

Difficult given that most people don't even speak the same language. For starters, we have completely different meanings to the word "marriage". How do truly have a discussion about marriage when you can't even agree on the definition of marriage?

Lately? None at all, has not come up. In the 2 or 3 threads in which you and Panacha were in quite a few times. Of course you don't seem to want to remember that?

Click to expand...

I can't say I remember even seeing such threads.

You mean you could never be a Christian because you do not accept Jesus as divine or your savior among other things. It has little to do with your interpretation outside of you do not accept the basic tenants of Christianity. I know plenty of Christians who have a really bad understanding of scripture and are still Christians.

Click to expand...

Oh my, what interesting judgment we have here. To be "Christian" you have to accept Jesus Christ as divine and as a savior. So your interpretation of the Bible grants you a monopoly on the word "Christian" as well as the word "marriage"? What if I argue that to be Christian you only have to seek to live a life that encompasses many of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Oh, we certainly speak two different languages.

Unfortunately that would be true.

Click to expand...

That is quite fine with me. My experiences have lead me to a very different perspective than your own.

Had you grown up in a different time or place, you may have a had a very different perspective, and the same for myself. So from an existential point of view, I can't say that I am too concerned if your perspective differs from my own.

Ikari said:

We are all different and YOU should get used to it. We're not the ones looking to whitewash society.

Click to expand...

The issue is always going to come down to this Ikari.
There are those that care about their fellow Americans and want equal liberties rights and freedoms for all.
Then thier are those that only want liberty rights and freedoms for themselves and the rest of America doesn't matter.

Thank god that luckily our country believes in the former and not the later. Even when we make mistakes, slavery, womens rights, minority rights, interracial marriage etc our country and our constitution fixes those wrongs. Sooner than later this will come to pass and get righted also.

CriticalThought said:

I didn't mean offense. I simply don't take anything in the Bible literally. For example, most of the New Testament was written decades after Jesus was gone. Given that people distort things days after hearing them, I cannot imagine how much of the original meaning was lost decades after. And of course, the defense that people use to justify taking even parts of the Bible literally is "the Bible says that the Bible is perfect". That kind of circular reasoning is impratical and irrational. I choose to have faith in God, not in a book.

Click to expand...

I have faith in God and his written law.

CriticalThought said:

But then we are back to the dissoance. Would you not want marriage redefined to exclude divorce and to punish adulterers? The current definition of marriage is one of serial monogamy and yet you seem to pretend that you are defending the definition that Jesus envisioned. They are not the same. Jesus probably never envisoined a state endorsed form of marriage with rights and liberties. What I don't understand why you are pretending that the marriage we have now is anything like the marriage in the Bible.

Click to expand...

It is supposed to be the same, that is what I am defending. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Yes I would be completely in favor and support divorce only in cases of adultery. But I have said this before and still you don't see.

CriticalThought said:

Difficult given that most people don't even speak the same language. For starters, we have completely different meanings to the word "marriage". How do truly have a discussion about marriage when you can't even agree on the definition of marriage?

Click to expand...

Legal definition...

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. - Legal Definition of Marriage

Now we know.

CriticalThought said:

I can't say I remember even seeing such threads.

Click to expand...

Considering you can't even remember things I said one post ago (no offense) but I am not surprised.

CriticalThought said:

Oh my, what interesting judgment we have here. To be "Christian" you have to accept Jesus Christ as divine and as a savior. So your interpretation of the Bible grants you a monopoly on the word "Christian" as well as the word "marriage"? What if I argue that to be Christian you only have to seek to live a life that encompasses many of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Oh, we certainly speak two different languages.

Click to expand...

Oh man, I... OK.

Since the beginning of Christianity and the church. Accepting Jesus as Saviour and divine is what being a Christian is, hence the word "Christ-Ian."

I have already given the legal definition of marriage, so no I don't have a monopoly on anything.

CriticalThought said:

That is quite fine with me. My experiences have lead me to a very different perspective than your own.

Had you grown up in a different time or place, you may have a had a very different perspective, and the same for myself. So from an existential point of view, I can't say that I am too concerned if your perspective differs from my own.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but makes it no less fun to debate.

Ikari said:

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. I mean, people will say all sorts of stuff. Just because some dumbasses will run their mouth doesn't mean that's proper argument against allowing same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Funny you would cut out the last part of my post, no biggie I am used to it.

Fact is you asked for reasons and I gave you many and many more exist. Don't really feel bothered by the fact you don't agree with it.

In the end it is just opinion as it has not happened. So your opinion or speculation on said matter really does not matter.

Centrist77 said:

The issue is always going to come down to this Ikari.
There are those that care about their fellow Americans and want equal liberties rights and freedoms for all.
Then thier are those that only want liberty rights and freedoms for themselves and the rest of America doesn't matter.

Thank god that luckily our country believes in the former and not the later. Even when we make mistakes, slavery, womens rights, minority rights, interracial marriage etc our country and our constitution fixes those wrongs. Sooner than later this will come to pass and get righted also.

Click to expand...

Here we go with "anyone who disagrees is anti-American."

Allot of the founders disagreed as well. I suppose they are also anti American? :lol:

Blackdog said:

Legal definition...

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. - Legal Definition of Marriage

Click to expand...

Do you also take the Onion seriously?

winston53660 said:

Do you also take the Onion seriously?

Click to expand...

You really need to pick up a book on law. That is the legal definition used by the US government.

Blackdog said:

You really need to pick up a book on law. That is the legal definition used by the US government.

Click to expand...

You need to check out the site you are sourcing:lamo

winston53660 said:

You need to check out the site you are sourcing:lamo

Click to expand...

The site is irrelevant, it is the actual law.

the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). - Legal Dictionary | Law.com

Granted they were making fun of the wording, but it is accurate.

Blackdog said:

Here we go with "anyone who disagrees is anti-American."

Allot of the founders disagreed as well. I suppose they are also anti American? :lol:

Click to expand...

This is the most illogical thing I read today. Tell me who the founders are and when the last one died?

Now tell me when equal liberties like civil rights, minority rights, interracial marriage etc passed?

how many years after? :lamo


I know why you are laughing because this must be a joke. For THEIR version of America they believed what was right for their time, now "America" has learned from its mistakes and made many progressions and improvements. We now see ALL men and women as equal citizens and believe in equal rights with much less discrimination. Thats what America is TODAY.

But to answer your question IF they were alive today and wanted to discriminate against blacks, women and gays, YES i most certainly would call them anti-American. I would think of them has selfish hypocrites that only want freedom, liberties and rights for themselves, not equally for all Americans because that's in fact what they would be. Because by TODAYS standards that's wrong. I'm not saying it was RIGHT back then but most didn't know any better. We weren't as smart, tolerant, advanced and civil of a society equality wise as we are today. LMAO

So your post is totally totally irrelevant.
Its like saying the people waaaaaaaay back in the day that thought the earth was flat were dumb, yeah thats easy to say NOW that we all know better.:doh

Blackdog said:

The site is irrelevant, it is the actual law.

the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). - Legal Dictionary | Law.com

Granted they were making fun of the wording, but it is accurate.

Click to expand...

Oh so now we switch to a commercial website:lamo

Show me the actual law.

Might I suggest you look at DOMA.

Centrist77 said:

This is the most illogical thing I read today. Tell me who the founders are and when the last one died?

Now tell me when equal liberties like civil rights, minority rights, interracial marriage etc passed?

how many years after? :lamo

I know why you are laughing because this must be a joke. For THEIR version of America they believed what was right for their time, now "America" has learned from its mistakes and made many progressions and improvements. We now see ALL men and women as equal citizens and believe in equal rights with much less discrimination. Thats what America is TODAY.

But to answer your question IF they were alive today and wanted to discriminate against blacks, women and gays, YES i most certainly would call them anti-American. I would think of them has selfish hypocrites that only want freedom, liberties and rights for themselves, not equally for all Americans because that's in fact what they would be. Because by TODAYS standards that's wrong. I'm not saying it was RIGHT back then but most didn't know any better. We weren't as smart, tolerant, advanced and civil, society and equality wise as we are today. LMAO

So your post is totally totally irrelevant.
Its like saying the people waaaaaaaay back in the day that thought the earth was flat were dumb, yeah thats easy to say NOW that we all know better.:doh

Click to expand...

Our "smart, tolerant, advanced and civil, society and equality wise as we are today." is a joke compared to what it was. Yes slavery and womens suffrage were wrong and a part of the times, but we are no better. With rampant crime, immorality and going broke quicker than **** through a goose. Our society is a pathetic crumbling joke.

It's up to those of us with back bone to stand up and say no more. While those who see everything as "gray" sit back and let it happen. Because if everything is gray, there is no right or wrong. All bets are off because of politically correct nonsense.