Gay Marriage? How about no marriage?

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 76
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Oh, right. I forgot that everything evil in the world can ultimately be traced back to some Christian influence somewhere.



    The AIDS epidemic in Africa is directly related to the transient nature of employment and the subsequent divorce of marriage and fidelity. There are, of course, smaller contributing factors and influences.



    But there are plenty of places in the world that suffer from the scars of colonialism (India, much of South America etc.) whose countries have not imploded from an AIDS epidemic.




    Well, to be utterly technical, if one believes that the christian god is omnipotent it is clear that every evil in the world is traced back to it because it could not exist without the approval of the omnipotent god for if something existed that the omnipotent god did not want to exist it would mean either the omnipotent god is not omnipotent or the omnipotent god really did want it to exist. So there.
  • Reply 62 of 76
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Well, to be utterly technical, if one believes that the christian god is omnipotent it is clear that every evil in the world is traced back to it because it could not exist without the approval of the omnipotent god for if something existed that the omnipotent god did not want to exist it would mean either the omnipotent god is not omnipotent or the omnipotent god really did want it to exist. So there.



    Don't argue theology BR, it's not your strong suit.



    The "Christian" God (Judeo-Christian in context) stands unique among others because He respects the boundaries of freewill that He gifted to humanity.



    Islam's Allah, for instance, sends divine revelations by prophets only. (Including one prophet whose coming has apparently has misled billions. )

    The Gods in the Greek myths just messed with mankind.



    Think about it: Any creation of life involves the possibility that your creation will one day go postal. Every parent knows this. What are your options?



    Not create anything? What about forcible intervention? What would you say if God came down and forced His will on you each time you were faced with a decision?



    Having some of His creation run amok does not make God less omnipotent, it simply breaks His heart. Personally, I don't have all the answers why it's taking so long, but He has promised that it will all work out in the end.



    And I believe Him.
  • Reply 63 of 76
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Frank777 and Kirkland better stop making belittling comments to one another or they're both going to take a little vacation.



    Now who is up for a group hug?
  • Reply 64 of 76
    My opinion in brief:



    A) Let there be homosexual marriages.



    B) If not A, then make all government certified unions be civil unions and leave marriage ceremonies to be performed as seen fit by various religeous organizations.



    C) When it comes to children, there are many well-founded reasons that society should promote a stable home life and I think gay/lesbian marriage fits right in with this. I've seen many examples of healthy homes run by same sex couples. I've also seen far to many cases of single screwed up heterosexuals barely taking care of their "mistakes." Ultimately government has no, and should have no, say in the reproductive lives of its citizens. I can only see same sex marrriage as a positive for family life.



    D) Bravo Oregon!



    E) Mayor Newsom may be breaking one law but he is pointing at the California consititution as his reason for doing it. This is hardly the first time in American history that a law is challanged (broken) to start a judicial dialog.
  • Reply 65 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Any creation of life involves the possibility that your creation will one day go postal.



  • Reply 66 of 76
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

    C) ........and I think gay/lesbian marriage fits right in with this. I've seen many examples of healthy homes run by same sex couples. I've also seen far to many cases of single screwed up heterosexuals barely taking care of their "mistakes."





    Are broken homes somehow on a par with the gay/lesbian prototype----or are they (gay/lesbian) better? If so, why? What happens when you compare the hetero model to the gay/lesbian?



    Since in both cases of the gay/lesbian prototype, either the "father" or "mother" is negated----which is more valuable---or are these terms antiquated?
  • Reply 67 of 76
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Once again, a child doesn't need a mother or a father in order to have feminine or masculine formative influences in their lives.



    What is important is that a child is cared for, loved and provided for in a stable environment. A gay couple can provide such an environment just as effectively as a married couple or a single person of either orientation.



    Children have been raised by gay parents for years, with no adverse effects.



    You seem to think homosexuality is a form of rejection of the opposite gender and its influences. It is not. Being a gay male does not make one a mysoginist, nor does being a lesbian necessarily lead one into a life of misandry.



    So, once again, you are trying to encourage and codify hateful discrimination with basic FUD.



    Kirk
  • Reply 68 of 76
    bush is against gay anything.



    kerry is against gay marriage, but for civil unions.



    it is the opinion of I as well as of the constitution that everyone should be treated equally. as long as one party isn't being hurt in any way, then there is no crime involved. i think our politics should not be involved with church action.



    as a church going man, a "marriage" is more of a religious event, with the union being a recognization of partnership by the state.



    my commentary is only of the definition of the words marriage and civil union, as well as of those of equality, and not any beliefs thereafter.



    however, to hate, is unjust.



    -walloo.
  • Reply 69 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney



    The ongoing debate about whether the state should sanction any marriage, gay or otherwise, is irrelevant to the core issue of marriage itself. It has some relevance to state benefits, although even here its relevance is limited because most seem ready to grant these benefits even in the case of civil unions.



    As I have posted before, the state should get out the the marriage business - it should neither recognize or not recognize marriages - and leave all people, heterosexual or gay, to marry in the way they deem fit, whether the pledge is made in a Church that accepts to perform a ceremony, before family and friends in a home, or even just as a matter between the two people involved. People can then decide whether to register civil unions for the purpose of state fiscal benefits, etc, but this is a matter entirely separate from the marriage itself.




    As long as there are tax, financial, and benefits benefits to being married the state will almost have to be somewhat involved in the marriage business. If the government is giving benefits for being "married" then they are intergrally part of the situation.
  • Reply 70 of 76
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by willywalloo

    bush is against gay anything.



    kerry is against gay marriage, but for civil unions.



    it is the opinion of I as well as of the constitution that everyone should be treated equally. as long as one party isn't being hurt in any way, then there is no crime involved. i think our politics should not be involved with church action.



    as a church going man, a "marriage" is more of a religious event, with the union being a recognization of partnership by the state.



    my commentary is only of the definition of the words marriage and civil union, as well as of those of equality, and not any beliefs thereafter.



    however, to hate, is unjust.



    -walloo.




    Well said. For a sec I had to take a double take as it is rare someone thinks exactly as I do with a topic.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 71 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777



    The "Christian" God (Judeo-Christian in context) stands unique among others because He respects the boundaries of freewill that He gifted to humanity.



    Islam's Allah, for instance, sends divine revelations by prophets only. (Including one prophet whose coming has apparently has misled billions. )

    The Gods in the Greek myths just messed with mankind.





    Just a theology note... Allah and the Judeo-Christian G-d are the same. That is why they are refered to as the "Religions of the book".



    And the Judeo-Christian G-d also sent down divine revelations by prophet only. But then again, to be a prophet you have to speak through divine inspiration and/or intervention so one kinda leads to another.
  • Reply 72 of 76
    Quote:

    Originally posted by willywalloo

    bush is against gay anything.



    kerry is against gay marriage, but for civil unions.



    it is the opinion of I as well as of the constitution that everyone should be treated equally. as long as one party isn't being hurt in any way, then there is no crime involved. i think our politics should not be involved with church action.



    as a church going man, a "marriage" is more of a religious event, with the union being a recognization of partnership by the state.



    my commentary is only of the definition of the words marriage and civil union, as well as of those of equality, and not any beliefs thereafter.



    however, to hate, is unjust.



    -walloo.




    Very well said. I'm religious myself and I keep religion and politics seperate. Blending the two only causes trouble.



    As long as both parties are are consenting adults, I don't think it's anyone else's business what they do in the bedroom. And there are still no good rational, non-religious arguments against "civil unions" allowing homosexuals the rights to the benefits straight people have had forever.
  • Reply 73 of 76
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Don't argue theology BR, it's not your strong suit.



    The "Christian" God (Judeo-Christian in context) stands unique among others because He respects the boundaries of freewill that He gifted to humanity.



    Islam's Allah, for instance, sends divine revelations by prophets only. (Including one prophet whose coming has apparently has misled billions. )

    The Gods in the Greek myths just messed with mankind.



    Think about it: Any creation of life involves the possibility that your creation will one day go postal. Every parent knows this. What are your options?



    Not create anything? What about forcible intervention? What would you say if God came down and forced His will on you each time you were faced with a decision?



    Having some of His creation run amok does not make God less omnipotent, it simply breaks His heart. Personally, I don't have all the answers why it's taking so long, but He has promised that it will all work out in the end.



    And I believe Him.




    None of the creation could run amok without the express desire of the ALL POWERFUL INFALLIBLE god. Clearly if the ALL POWERFUL INFALLIBLE god didn't want its creation to run amok, it wouldn't because if it did such an action would CONTRADICT THE ALL POWERFUL INFALLIBLE PLAN and that would make the god either FALLIBLE or INTENTIONALLY CREATING AMOKRUNNERS.



    And no, theology as you define it is not my strong suit. I'm not easily hoodwinked.
  • Reply 74 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FaydRautha

    As long as there are tax, financial, and benefits benefits to being married the state will almost have to be somewhat involved in the marriage business. If the government is giving benefits for being "married" then they are intergrally part of the situation.



    That's why the state shouldn't even recognize a church marriage. Anyone married in a church should have to go sign a piece of paper for their civil union if they want any government benefits.
Sign In or Register to comment.