- If you live in STL and you're interested.. -lauren ikon
- Vitamin B12: Be healthy, Educate yourself and others -Zapa
- non American news clips of the Gaza massacre. Cynthia M... -Paxananda
- vid: SF rally in protest of Isreali occupation of Gaza ... -Paxananda
- *~*Happy New Year!*~* -FreeSpirit
- joe rogan speaks on hemp... -pleaseone tko
- knickers ! -exocoetidae
- Peace and Goodwill to all men and women! -Maria
- Question: Can I plant this sprouted onion -The notorious P.I.P
- Answer to: Vancouver -The notorious P.I.P
- Answer to: Vancouver -greg ilyaseen
- Answer to: What are some effective ways to boost the immune system?... -greg ilyaseen
- Answer to: What are some effective ways to boost the immune system?... -The notorious P.I.P
- Answer to: What to do about rude people -The notorious P.I.P
- Answer to: What to do about rude people -greg ilyaseen
- Blog: I am slap happy. -The notorious P.I.P
- well, this is awesome. -lauren ikon
- BTW I only said 6:30 so Erin and James didnt gave to fe... -The notorious P.I.P
- By the way I cannot be held responsible for anything I ... -The notorious P.I.P
- The Big Ole Trans Band. Pretty funny. -greg ilyaseen
- What!? You're back?! -greg ilyaseen
- in case you didn't see it, he made it into a poll. -Bambina
- Is this supossed to be a poll? I sort of agree with Bur... -The notorious P.I.P
- Welcome home! -Bambina
Gay Marriage
|
Marriage, legally has very little to do with "love". It's a fiscal, a legal arrangement where two people agree to share certain fiscal responsibilities and agree to give each other power of attorney. This agreement is binding if the two are in love, sleeping together or not in love, not sleeping together. So who cares if people want to give certain power of attorney to somebody else of the same sex? Who cares who somebody wants to share their fiscal responsibility with? Why should it matter what's between somebody's legs for such agreements? We need remove the idea of love the secular contract of marriage. We should look as it is and maybe the stupid religious loons might leave it alone.  Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:38pm — shoogie
|
Printer-friendly version
Gay marriage should be legal
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states and in every country around the world. End of debate.
We need remove the idea of
We need remove the idea of love the secular contract of marriage. We should look as it is and maybe the stupid religious loons might leave it alone.
I agree with that. While many of the reasons some people get married for have nothing to do with love. (if im wrong i apologize) I believe the idea of marriage stemmed from religious institutions in the first place.
i am 36 have been with the same person for 15 years and i do not believe in marriage.But that is me. (I however would get married if i had a legal reason to do so.)I have also not been handfasted.
I think it did stem from
I think it did stem from religious institutions, or at least from religous beliefs. As far as I know, in Bible times, it was done to offer women some protection. I think the Canon Law of the Church tidied up marriage cermeonies and establised clear conditions as well for the protection of women! It would be interesting to check out the history of mariage. People might be get a few surprises...
here's a simple version from
here's a simple version from about.com:
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.
Some varieties of marriage are
polygamy
polygyny
polyandry
endogamy
exogamy
common law marriage
monogamy
Different periods of time and different cultures have very different histories when it comes to women. Ancient Egypt, in theory, gave women equal rights, but it wasn't always practiced. Medieval women faced dual responsibilities to religion and marriage.
Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.
Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.
One nearly universal tradition is that of the engagement ring. This custom can be dated back to the ancient Romans. It is believed that the roundness of the ring represents eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart.
The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).
Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.
The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.
There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.
Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.
Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.
<3&(A)
Very interesting. Thanks. I
Very interesting. Thanks.
I also decided to do some investigating myself last night, and came up with this read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
...you forgot cokarugamy
...you forgot cokarugamy
tell it to about.com
tell it to about.com :P
<3&(A)
Noone has the right to tell
Noone has the right to tell someone else how to live thier life. You should not have to ask for permission to live your life out with your chosen.The thought of that breaks my brain.
I honestly havent heard of same sex marriage taking place in a christian church. Usually a courthouse or unitarian church as previously mentioned.Im sure there is very little to worry in the way of that happening.
I agree that someone should not have to work against thier religious conscience. And im sure that can be worked out in a way where everyone can have the right to live thier chosen life. mayhaps im being naieve .
(My veganism is very wrapped in my religious beliefs but yet i find myself at that stupid bar cooking and puking)
I just find it hard to be empathetic of the religious mainstream in general. The mainstream that supresses the rights of others in the first place.(but as that is not a matter on the post i leave that there)
Right. So all those NAMBLA
Right. So all those NAMBLA members that LOVE little boys should have that right. And the people at the Hormel plant that torture pigs should have that right too. And why should you have to get someone to drive you home when your drunk when your capable of doing it yourself? My people were persecuted for having to many wives but we sucked it up and don't do it anymore. We live in a democracy here and majority rules. You want to change it go vote.Save a chicken:)
I don't see the comparison
I don't see the comparison between pedophilia, animal abuse, and the love two people of the same gender share. I just don't see it, and I find that comparison disturbing. Many others on here have brought up the fact that black people and women didn't used to be able to vote, and hmm...who was the majority imposing their beliefs on what they could do? It hardly seems fair that the majority who are heterosexual get to impose their homophobic rules on a minority when it has no bearing on their lives.
"Noone has the right to tell
"Noone has the right to tell someone else how to live thier life."
My response was based on this comment. I posted my thoughts on the marriage issue already.
Save a chicken:)
I think shoogie is right.
I think shoogie is right. Pairing through romantic love is a modern concept. Marriage has always been a economic and political affair.
not modern... we should say
not modern... we should say a low/middle class concept for marriage in the 13th and 14th centuries. marriage through love has been around since, the merchant class came to be. And more so was embraced by the coming of the Proletariat, and one of the reasons for the french revolution.
Coupling for love, has been around for ages, many landshare owners, and serfs did this to a degree, picking a lady to mate with to make farming a little easier which yes could be economic, but many picked this solution out of people they cared for.
*is a history nerd*
I agree!! -pip! Love first,
I agree!!
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
(No subject)
10 Reasons why Gay Marriage
10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
(ETA: Clearly I do NOT believe any of these things. I just had a horrible vision of being attacked for being insensitive to homosexuals.)
hahaha
hahaha
LOL
LOL
LoL I like your ETA. At
LoL I like your ETA. At first glance I was like, hmmmm I didn't think she was like that???
**XOXOXO**
One thing that bothers me
One thing that bothers me with domestic partnerships is that even though they may have equal medical and legal rights, they don't have to get a divorce. So hetero couples have to go to court and fight for their stuff and loose half their money while gay couples don't. I say get rid of marriage in the legal sense all together. Everyone should file domestic partnerships. This would also protect people when they decide to live together because they don't feel they need a piece of paper to prove their love. Keep marriage in the church. Also domestic partnerships could extend beyond sexual relationships. Sisters could form them in order to insure their children, parents and children as well. Domestic partnerships could protect families regardless of how they are formed.
Save a chicken:)
It may or may not be the
It may or may not be the case that legal marriage has little to do with love. In the past, it was often for political, social and/or financial reasons that a couple entered into a public contract. But even in these circumstances, the marriage contract was always understood as being something which takes place between a man and a woman - or several in some cases. In my view, this kind of contract can be a seriously impoverished view of marriage and often reduces people to commodities or pieces in a chess game.
But even then, generally speaking, it is assumed that the marriage will be consummated (which can only really happen between a man and a woman) and that it will be fruitful, ie. produce heirs and offspring.
I think gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.
But I see a case where it might be possible to recognize a long standing partnership in a civil court. But I would call it that: a registered partnership. I would neither call it nor recognize it as a "marriage". I think it is dishonest, leads to confusion and diminishes the real meaning of marriage.
Regarding fiscal rights, finances and whatever, I do not understand how people cannot arrange these kind of things betwen themselves, and draw up a legal testament in the event of death.
I always thought the
I always thought the marriage was consummated the first time you have sex as a married couple. What if someone can't have kids or cant even have sex?? Does this mean their marriage was never consummated?
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
I don´t think I implied
I don´t think I implied anything else :) It is consunmated the first time you have sex as a married couple, but the assumption is that, generally speaking, children will come out of that union :)
i don't understand how gay
i don't understand how gay marriage is a contradiction of terms. the word marriage is "a close union". For example saying "veganism is the marriage between compassion and health" Compassion and health doesn't have genders... are we going to rewrite the English language now? ^_^
People like to redistribute what words mean all the time. Marriage is not just a word to describe two people getting rings, its a real word that has use outside a legal contract. Maybe christians needs a word for their "man and woman getting married" other than one that obviously has nothing to do with gender, even if they keep complaining that it does.
The first and most common
The first and most common definition of marriage is that it is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
"Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms because marriage as commonly understood assumes certain things in order to be recognizable :)
Biologically speaking, a man´s body is destined to fit into a woman´s body, quite literally. Out of that, generally speaking, an intimate union is formed and new life is often created. It serves two purposes: union and pro-creation. Marriage is intimately hinged with ensuring stability and engendering life within communities.
For THOUSABNDS of years in many faiths and none, and in most societies, this has been accepted as the norm.
So who is trying to re-define the meaning of the word?
Marriage is also a parallel of the inner workings of human psychology; the complementarity of the male and female, ying and yang, etc. For Christians, it is also a reflection of the Trinity and an active involvement in creation.
"Gay marriage", by its very nature, does not and cannot fulfill these basic requirements. If it is unitive and pro-creative, it is by distortion.
So are you saying that
So are you saying that marriage is only for making babies?
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
No, I am not saying that
No, I am not saying that mariage is only for making babies!!!!!!! I am saying sex is the proper place for mariage. I am also saying - as I responded in another remark to you - that, GENERALLY SPEAKING, children will come out of sexual union. I actually said there are two functions in marriage: union AND procreation. But there are other kinds of fruit in the case of infertility: adopting a child, fostering children, helping children through charity work.
It's funny you say that. In
It's funny you say that. In my church yes. Even if the couple can't have children in this life they will be given children in the afterlife. So in my faith it really is a religious thing. Pre-marital sex is a no no.
Save a chicken:)
thank you molly. i was just
thank you molly. i was just going to say that.
As yourself being a
As yourself being a christian, I understand you look at marriage as a union to make babies... thats how the bible illustrates such things. Pleasure in sex is look at as taboo, as it creates lust which according to much of the bible is a gateway to many sins wrought on by man. Sins that have slaughtered many people.
however biologically speaking a man's penis is not made to fit in a woman's body very well... or it would not bleed and cause pain to them. in the animal kingdome sex causes even more pain, such as lizards whom when having sex, the penis is ripped off. in retrospect sodomy is quite up there in natural design.
When we think spiritual, and of the soul, I don't believe for a second that being united of soul has anything to do with sex. the only girl i've ever loved isn't able to have sex... and even to this day, even if we are not together, I still feel that our souls are tightly intertwined. So shall we never be able to be married either, because we cannot have sex? how about couples where one is unable to make child should infertitle couples have marriage null and void?
Also if we look to words, wed came from Wedden the old english meant "to pledge into union". It was a pledge only dictated to a man. A woman had no title in the Saxon religions of the 1400s.
Matrimony, is of course a word coming from Madre or mother. The word if broken reduces to "making a mother"
Now I'd like to just point out that these words "wed" and "matrimony" are very different words. however we use them interchangeable with "marriage" and the dictonary tends to muck them up do to the unjustified use of them.
What I said in a previous
What I said in a previous remark was that I understood marriage as having TWO purposes: union AND procreation (fruit). As you quoted the Bible, I will refer to it. The very first chapters tell us that. It is seen as a GIFT and a partaking in the creative work of God. The fruit of sex - children - are seen and welcomed as a blessing. Pleasure is NOT treated as taboo. That is an incorrect reading. In fact, the Song of Songs is a glorification of sex between a man and a woman :) Lust is wrong when it leads to the degradation and violation of another person(s). I believe you would also see lust as wrong in that kind of context.
Speaking of biology, when I speak of the male and female bodies being made for each other, I am also speaking of the obvious fruit which normally comes out of their unhindered union. The simple fact is women having sex together do not produce babies. Men having sex together do not produce babies.
And, pain - if there is any - usually only occurs the first time when the hymen is broken. It is an interesting fact that our bodies actually produce their own lubricants to facilitate sexual intercourse.
I wasn´t saying that the union of souls has anything to do with sex in the way you seem to think - although in many ancient Temple cults around the world it was seen like that and included sexual intercourse with Temple prostitutes and fertility rituals and cermonies, etc, as a means of reaching the gods and spiritual heights...
Modern psychology would say would say that each of us has BOTH masculine and feminine qualities within us which need to be intergrated in order for our personalities to develop in a healthy way and to blossom and bear fruit. I see marriage between a man and a woman as a external sign of this inner reality. That´s all. Nothing more, nothing less. I think you misunderstood me. I am speaking metaphorically!
You also speak of the only girl you have ever loved and about infertile couples. I was NOT suggesting that you should NOT marry the girl you love or that the infertile mariages are null and void. Those kind of thoughts were FAR from my mind. And if you understood it like that, I am apologise :)
I am leading a celibate life (see my response to Shoogie here somewhere) so I understand very well that it is possible to love someone very deeply and experience a union of souls without ever having to enter into a sexual relationship :) It is a GREAT GIFT.
first I'm sorry, I wasn't
first I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to quote the bible, but instead paraphrase a good portion of it. there is a lot there that do talk about waiting "for marriage" and all that in there, and only have sex with your one and only partner and all that jazz. this is more or less what I meant, also there's stories where having sex and thinking with the "crotch" has screwed over many men in the old testiment (granted I will say its been many years since I've read the Christian bible)
With that said you do have made some wonderful points here. And much of which you will not get a disagreement here from me. But if I take it at root value, the only reason I can see to err the judgement of same sex marriage is the making baby part. Pleasure, being with another and sharing this warmth of body of a spirit, this union both psychologically and in the flesh. And you seem like someone who enjoys the idea of love as much as I do, and I think thats wonderful.
However to me aside from the making babies part I can't think of another thing that is wrong with love of the same sex. I believe that in the bible, they speak of it being wrong cause you are picking someone who cannot "carry the seed" to the next generation. there infact killing future generations and stunting the growth of humanity. I believe that the "abomination" they refer to in the bible, is that is cause sex has no point if it can't fullfill both reproduction and pleasure. Having sex with your same sex is like masterbation... whats the point?
but I disagree with that. I think united with someone you love is amazing even if it has no out aside from sharing the moment with someone you love.
All in all I think I understand that your stance is because its in the bible. However my defense would be what others have said, why do we pick and chose the stuff in leviticus? aside from homosexuality, is there much else in that book that christians still believe in and use to this day?
I actually see something
I actually see something very beautiful in "waiting for the right one". It involves the whole idea of anticipation and the complete giving of oneself as a gift. I live in a culture where people get often involved in sexual relationships at an early age, and move from one relationship to another to such an extent that the meaning of sex as a commitment, of giving is greatly impoverished to the extent that is becomes reduced to nothing or a type of recreation. And I agree that the "crotch" has screwed up alot of things. Rape is stil being used as a weapon of war.
I believe the correct place for sex is within a committed relationship. To my mind, that is between man and a woman in marriage. And important part of it - generally speaking - is about making babies :) But as a Christian, as I said somewhere earlier, i also believe marriage is about taking an active part in the work of creation. It is also about love. For me, the fruitfulness of marriaget is a sign of the Trinity - the Lover, the Loved and the Beloved. That envelpes all of us. But it is also a sign of Jesus total self giving and the union between him and His Church which is traditonally seen as female. St. Paul takes about the Church asthe Bride of Christ.
I think the Bible speaks of sex as you say (although I am not familiar with the phrases you use) because in the Old Testament in particuliar, having children was essentail to their survival; they were seen as a blessing and barreness as a curse. I think it is still valid today as the deliberate and sustuained closure to the possibility of new life (children) is a rejection of the blessing implicit in a sexual union, and sex with someone of one´s own sex is an outright rejection of that belssing.
There is also the unitive dimension which is just as important. That means commitment, and is a sense the commitment is only as good as the people who make it. It includes the whole concept of integrity and stability. It is what can carry a couple through hard times. It also gives stability to the children who need both a male and a female figure in their lives in order to grow into healthy adults.
A very interesting Government study was carried out a few years ago in Great Britain which uncovered - to the surprise of many - that many of its social problems had their roots in family breakdown. You can read about it at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536576/Conservatives-to-renew-th...
You will find "The state of the Nation Report - Fractured Families; December 2006
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/BB_family_brea...
I can imagine that the result would be similiar elsewhere.
To say any of this, does not negate the point you make about being united with someone in love being amazing.
Regarding your final point, there is much in the Bible that we still use today, even unawares. I do not have the time or space to go into it here, nor is it the place, but will be happy to do so elsewhere if you wish :)
I have intensely studied the
I have intensely studied the song of songs (or shir ha shirim) as well as all the commentary on it. It is not a glorification of sex. It actually has a deep meaning having to do with the relationship between man and God. But obviously our religions have differing translations and ideas on this.
And if you say that marriage is not just for baby making but for having a union then why can't gay people just do the union part?
And the thing about the union of souls. Maybe you aren't aware but gay people don't just love each other in a brotherly way. They want to have SEX with each other. Just loving each other from afar isn't going to cut it for most people. Not everyone can be celibate.
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
The Son of Songs is BOTH!
The Son of Songs is BOTH! One does not negate the other :)
read my response I just posted above to your next question :) i have to rush out now...
Not not everyone can be celibate, but a lot of people seem to think that no one can be celibate anymore. We do have such a thing as self-control and avoiding occasions of sin!
But that's the problem. In
But that's the problem. In Cali and in Az gay couples have unions. They have all the same rights they get medical benefits death benefits hospital rights etc. But they want the word marriage. And they want to force churches to do their ceremonies.
Save a chicken:)
force the church? most of
force the church? most of them are going to a court house. those that do it in church are doing them in unitarian churches. I haven't heard a single thing about them forcing churches to have weddings.
But if they get marriage
But if they get marriage rights they can sue churches for discrimination. Currently they don't have the grounds to do it, but if gay marriage is legalized they would have that right.
Save a chicken:)
>Pleasure in sex is look at
>Pleasure in sex is look at as taboo, as it creates lust which according to much of the bible is a gateway to many sins wrought on by man.
Come to my church... you'll stop thinking that way.
(No subject)
awesome -pip! Love first,
awesome
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
Sweet vid Phactorri. I like
Sweet vid Phactorri. I like what you said about couples who can't make babies- well considered. Where is Maria's response to that? Maybe Maria you could just write all of this out so you can see your thoughts more clearly- later when the whole world agrees with us you will feel less foolish the sooner you get it. I just want you to get it. Write it down on a big sheet of paper, maybe pros and cons with some critical analysis would do it. Go big picture. No more witch burning please.
A friend of mine is here at
A friend of mine is here at my house right now and he was raised by his two mothers- lesbians who have been together for a very long time (he's now 28). These women are exemplary citizens and mothers. What message are you telling my friend? Oh and he has two little brothers the youngest being like six maybe. Beautiful little boys, and my friend is intelligent and spiritual and full of love. Just by what you have been saying in here Maria is that he is somehow incorrect, improper, an abomination of sorts- are you sure you know God's plan well enough to assert your position and your take on things, assert your will?
How about you let God decide whats right and wrong and keep your sinful humanness to yourself.
I am disappointed in you
I am disappointed in you Micah Perry. I also read your other comment further down.
What is it about people that as soon as someone has another opinion with regard to homosexuality, they must immediately be called homophobics and haters... I have a well informed opinion also, and I happen to believe that marriage has a function and exists betwen a man and a woman. You are free to agree with me or not agree, and your are free to live as you wish. You are not free to redefine and impose those views on me or anyone else as you see fit.
I know several homosexuals and have the same respect for them that I have for everyone else. I do not impose my celibacy on them or ask them to sanction it. I respect their right to have their views on my life. And I never suggested that lesbians or anyone else could not be loving people or good citizens.
I look after children every day and I have seen one or two about whom I said that it would not suprise me to learn
in ten years time that they were homosexuals. I did not treat them any different than the other children. I have also looked after a nine year old boy living with his mother and her female partner. It was heart-breaking to hear that child say more than once that he wished he was a girl. Then he would have a womb and could have children... If that is not a sign of an upcoming identity crisis, what is...
Regarding God,the Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination, unless you are re.writing it. But as such it is not better or worse than a host of other things.
It is strange too that I cannot suggest that homosexual ACTIVITY might be disordered without being labelled a sinner, but you can call me a sinner for saying that... expressing an opinion...and consider yourself rightoeus...
And yes, I´m a sinner - like everyone, I am human. I make mistkaes. I do wrong, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes out of weakness or ignorance.
But again, the issue under disicussion is NOT about how people chose to live out their lives, it is about whether the rest of us should be obliged to officially sanction "gay marriage", whether we agree or not.
And please, no more hate from you. I deserve better.
Leviticus also says that it
Leviticus also says that it is okay to keep slaves, to keep people as property; that if a man and a woman engage in sexual activity during her period they should be cut off from society; it says that you cannot plant your field with two kinds of seed and cannot wear clothing made out of two kinds of material. So, doesn't it seem a little outrageous to select homosexuality out of an ancient text, and ignore all those other little things? The church is so selective, and stagnant. It's discriminatory, and pretends that homosexuality is something recent. [This portion is more directed at the general public of strict Bible followers. I had to get that out.]
The thing is, when you impose religious mandates on the whole of society, especially those which keep two people from doing something just because you do not agree with them, it IS a form of hatred, and oppression. It doesn't have to mean that you hate them, personally, but it is an expression of hatred towards their desired lifestyle and that's just as bad. You say that the "rest of us" shouldn't have to officially sanction gay marriage, but why is it even a question of permission? It seems wrong that some people have to beg for permission, and others don't. It akin to whites being able to go into the nice restaurant, and blacks having to beg for permission. Or men being allowed to vote, but women having to beg for permission.
<3&(A)
Great comment
Great comment Lauren
-pip!
Love first, love last, love always
www.dancingdeserae.com www.dezigns.etsy.com
I am not selecting anything.
I am not selecting anything. I was not even the first one to mention God. The ONLY REASON I referred to the Bible was to respond to Micah Perry´s accusation against me in which he maintained that I am saying his friend is an abomination when he asked: "are you sure you know God's plan well enough to assert your position and your take on things, assert your will? How about you let God decide whats right and wrong and keep your sinful humanness to yourself "
I do not make a literal reading of the Bible; that is not its purpose. I am guided by what Jesus takes up in the New Testament. And one of the things he does is to underline the commandments not to steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. He also repeats the message straight from the opening chapters of Genesis about a man and a woman becoming one flesh. He also gives us the great commandment and example of LOVE as he loved - which is why I respect homosexuals as I respect everyone else, and try to act and speak in love.
The Church does not pretend that homosexuality is something recent. It is something which is discussed early in the New Testament when St. Paul addresses the Corinithians in a area which was notorious for its promiscuity :) It is also taken up at other times throughout Church history.
I am not imposing anything. I actually only gave a commonly recognized definiton of mariage in which I said that I believe mariage exists between a man and a woman, and that it has two purposes: union and procreation.
I also added that I see a case where it might be possible to recognize a long standing partnership in a civil court. But I would call it that: a REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. I would neither call it nor recognize it as a marriage".
But sadly, my comment seems to have been lost on several...
There is a strong body which also wants to impose its views on me, and others like me. In some parts of the world, Church services have been aggressively interupted and invaded, people are being blocked from getting jobs, others harrassed and bullied out of jobs for which they are well qualified, others have received death threats, and Church agencies are being aggressively pushed into acting against their consciences within their own field of work because of the homosexual agenda. So who is imposing what on whom? And where are the rights to religious freedom and freedom of conscience and security of person in this kind of context?
You have every right to
You have every right to freedoms of religion and conscience; I'm not trying to impose on your beliefs, only challenge them. Because if people don't challenge each other, everything stands still, and that's not good for anybody.
I made a note below the paragraph about Leviticus; that wasn't directed at you, because I know that's not what you said.
I guess it depends on which church you go to about the presence of homosexual acts throughout society. Lots of them are in denial.
See, you are, however, imposing your chosen definition. Yes, it is the commonly recognized definition, but it is not the only definition. You can be married in a church, you can be married by the state. It can be a spiritual, religious, social or legal union. Marriage can also be defined as a socially sanctioned union which produces the family. You could say, "they can't reproduce, so that can't produce a family," but that all depends on the definition of family. It's not set in stone. They could adopt children, and that can be a family. If lesbians, one could be inseminated, and give birth. So, family can be created.
Also, sure, there could just be civil unions/partnerships, but there are gays who are traditionalists, and they might want the wedding, the ceremony, might be religious, or what have you, and then someone is going to tell them, "No, you can't have what you want. You are not free to have this because we think youre lifestyle doesn't fit." It's unfair.
*Note: My personal position is to abolish marriage all together, but that doesn't quite have the place in this argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<3&(A)
Thanks Lauren. I would just
Thanks Lauren. I would just like to emphasize the part about Maria's position being filled with hate- she just doesn't see it.
Also Maria- in all my years studying childhood development and working with children for years I can say with confidence that nothing about what that little kid said was unhealthy or non-normative. Identity crisis is a normative part of developing identity, it is how you go through the crisis that matters. There is no evidence to support your claim that having gay parents renders the children unhealthy. This claim of yours is based on superstitious beliefs- beliefs are often mistaken. Your belief about gays being bad for kids is very much mistaken. You are projecting your own superstitious fears onto this topic and reading things that aren't there: every child goes through what that little kid said about the gender issue.
And again- this idea you are clutching so tightly is hurting people and for really no good reason other than you yes YOU think it is right. If you were around during the civil war era you would have been fighting to keep slavery legal too. Oh my bad- I mean until the church changed its position- which it has done and done again. Just when I start thinking some Christians are ok.
I did not say gays were bad
I did not say gays were bad for children. I KNOW a homosexual working with children. He too knows I believe sex belongs to hetrosexual marriage and he does not seem to have problem with that. I guess, because he believes in the right to freedom of thought, expression, conscience and religion :) Of course, he also knows from experience that I meet and treat him as I meet every other human being, with respect and dignity.
I also have a very good friend who lived a bi-sexual lifestyle for years. He also shared with me his struggles regarding his sexuality. Today, he is living a celibate lifestyle because He believes his former lifestyle was wrong.
That aside, people should know that I actually live in Scandinavia, where Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=same+sex+unions+in+scandinavia&sourceid=i...
It is also worth noting that in recent years, some of these countries have introduced in the midst of controversy church blessings, adoption, IVF for same sex couples and indivuals who disagree have had cases against them for peacefully excerising their right to freedom of thought and religion...
And I am NOT the prejudiced person you want me to be. If you knew me, you would not say that.