Gay Marriage

walter

On the subject of apples...do you know the Johnny Appleseed story? Permit me to further educate one old European on American folklore:



Now, quite aside from our modern squeamishness about where the boy was getting his drinking water, this story epitomizes for me how mythology (story) informs or creates culture. One can put this particular story right beside Romulus and Remus, or any other such foundational myth story.

What can become disconcerting, is when real events and values contradict the elements in such a story, and yet the members of the culture (broadly, if not universally) cannot allow themselves to accept more negative truths or realities, and fall back upon the comfort of the myth story.

In this case, for example, one might point to the fact that the US is the world's largest exporter of munitions to the world. A little less friendly than lovely apple trees.

Someone please tell all those heterosexuals who engage in oral and anal sex that they are loved by the Christians. I wonder how many of them are Christians? Please spare us the piety unless you can attest to a fact that you have never sinned. Most gays I would make an educated guess are seeking only the legal and civil advantages of a marriage contract. Any church has the freedom to deny the ceremony, which is, in fact, only a ceremony. Without the legal contract a church ceremony does not ordain a heterosexual couple as married. Those who have the fantasy that marriage was conceived as a regilious ceremony are in total error and should be admonished for their ignorance.

Ignorance = Bigotry
Bigotry = Ignorance

Hmmm. I'd be inclined to distinguish willful ignorance from circumstantial ignorance, meself.

LW, It's more like <ignorance+bigotry = ignorance+bigotry>. My math was never all that good, anywhose.

Yes, I have an opinion and I feel it is good for the gay and for the straight.

Regardless what the law is or is not now or later, the law of sin which is a seperation from God includes the practice of homosexuality and also other sins of the flesh. Sins, we all have them. So God is against any sin, and sin is not what enters a person but what comes out of the person by condemnation of the act. God will not change his mind about sin, he cannot even look upon sin, that is why Jesus was sent to be in the flesh and to be mankinds intercessor unto God. Jesus came to honor the law but with justice and mercy for all men. Not just across the board condemnation and punishment for sins.

The Constitution states: All men are created equal. That is the law of the land. It should be followed. Equal rights for all.

God allows divorce through the insistence of mankind to have it. But in Gods eyes it will still remain against his will. Just like slavery. It is against the will of God to enslave others, but due to the historical insistence of men it has remained within the society of men.

Jesus came to put away the ordinances of the OT, which was condemnation and severe penalities for offending the ordinances of the OT. [quote]14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. -colossians 2[/quote]

Thru the NT and the gospel we are under another command which Jesus came to fulfill. The command to LOVE one another , love another as you would love yourself. THis is the 2nd most important thing to remember when it comes to a relationship with GOD, thru Jesus.
This commandment to LOVE is above all law and ordinance. For LOVE covers a multitude of sins.(our own sins)

It is not wrong to honor the governments of man. God has told us to be in subjection to them for they are in place to benefit men. And to punish the wrong.

If we are to do the will of the LORD it would be to LOVE all and that would include gays who practice homosexuality. There is many gays who have relationships with Jesus and condemnation is not what their relationship is about.

To believe that homosexuality is a worse sin than stealing would be contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the LORD and saviour. Who forgives ALL sin.

All men are created equal. If we take what the wise founding fathers wrote literally, that would mean that women are inferior creatures. At the time, I believe they did think that way. Is the document truly modern? Nope.

Those who cling to the past are doomed to live in it -- if there ever is a time machine invented, how many would want to travel back to those "good old days" if they had no way to return. Second thoughts?

I hope y'all will forgive me for reposting in this marriage discussing a recap from the last one because I think it is important for all my conservative brethren to take a 'step back' and look at the possible consequences of NOT allowing a marriage of this type to be legalized:

Hey, all I have to say is that if homosexuals want to be as miserable as the rest of us married heterosexuals, more power to them.

But seriously, marriage is a bond of both love(a) and law(b) setting forth a couples commitment to each other.

(a) The day they are allowed to restrict my rights on who I can love is the day Orwell's vision of the future is here.

(b) Once they are allowed to restrict fair and EQUAL access to the law of this country based on ANY criteria is the day that ALL of us loose the protection of those laws.

For those of you out there who feel that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, ask your selves just two simple questions.

1) What kind of effect will this have on you and your life?

2) What freaking business is it of yours what two people who love each other do with their lives?

Remember also two important lessons that 'ole Fedral tries to live his life by:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.[/i]

My freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose.[/i]

I have had this argument SO many times during Republican committee meetings that I always bring throat lozenges (just in case this topic comes up)

I have ended up in screaming matches with some of my fellow Conservatives trying to pound some sense into their head (The fun ones to mess with are the Moral Majority whackos)

I tried to explain it to them that this was one of those slippery slopes that we all have to watch out for.

I mean once they allow part of the law of the land to NOT cover certain people based upon their sexual orientation, whats next?

Next thing they will disallow the legal right to vote based upon the sex of the voter.

Or maybe the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness based upon someones skin color.

Hey look, we fell right back into the 1700's and we all know just how great things were back then. (As long as you were a free white male landowner)

I still stand firmly on the Conservative Right, but there are some issues that are just too important to walk in rank with your political brethren.

I agree with you on this one Fedral and it always had made me as dubious about the far right as I am about the far left. It's a case of not putting their actions where their mouths are and those are often dislocated from their minds. What the amendment defining marriage actually means is they are dictating what the churches and states should or should not do based on a personal repugnance to the mind's image of a sex act. Then, why not pass a law against Mom and Dad being married because of the repugnant image of their having sex? Bush, in my opinion, is going to sink himself getting aboard this boat (not to mention other unseaworthy crafts on the borderline of political lunacy).

fedral

Well said. It is a prejudice matter and a liberty matter.

lightwizard you get the prize :wink: i figured someone would claim.... and that is directing a response to the obvious words of the Constitution, "all men are created equal". At the time of the writing of this wise line, this wisdom they wrote was even above their own intelligence at the time. But they were inspired words that went forth out of the HS into the Constitution and the WORD of GOD never goes out in vain, what he says is done.
So regardless of the times of the society then, the truth of the words are accurate and have become a reality for blacks and women and it should be the same for the homosexuals. [We are still working on the issue of slavery as far as I am concerned. ] The forefathers did not even see, though they had eyes, nor did they understand, though they have intelligence, what those WORDS would encompass. All men are created equal and Biblical scripture backs that thought up with boldness and steadfastness.

Ruach

Many, like myself, have a different set of beliefs from you. Like myself, they have no reason to accept that that the books of your bible are anything but man-made, thus merely stories and opinions, quite like that of the Haida, or the Whirling Dervish.

Therefore, in the spirit of such liberties as your (or our) constitutions provide for, we aren't likely to accept your notions of how anyone other than yourself ought to live. And of course, within the same spirit of liberty and democracy, we aren't likely to allow a singular and exclusionary code to become law, simply on the basis of your faith that you have it right. Indeed, we would be unprincipled to do so.

All men are created equal, except homosexuals will spend the rest of eternity in hell. Lovely god, that.

Well, what is the use of being compassionate if you can't hate everyone who isn't as compassionate as you are? That seems to be the Christian Motto. BTW, Ruach, the constitution's writers didn't believe the things you do. I suggest you read Hollifield's Theology in America: Christian Thought From the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), particularly chapters seven and eight.

I thought Ruach was saying that homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as all others in matters of commitment both morally and spiritually. Isn't that what you were saying, Ruach? Maybe I misunderstood. If it says it in the Bible........ I suspect that's for everyone to interpret for themselves. But if Ruach believes it says that in the Bible, that's fine. If the Bible doesn't say it, it should.........

I personally don't see the need for marriage as opposed to civil union. I want my rights protected in any contract I have with another person and I have no need for religious sanctions. But there are those who want to marry in the traditional sense of the word and right now, unless you live in Mass., if you're gay or lesbian, you can't. And that's not fair.

I know of people who have lived together for decades and had no contact with families. Some of them have adopted children together. But when one of them dies, the families come in and tell the partner he or she has to go and the families take all the assets. It's disgusting that this goes on in our country where civil rights should be protected.

I understand not at all the argument that marriage will be "diluted" if same sex marriage is sanctioned. I just heard a debate between Barney Franks and Bob Barr on CNN. Barr couldn't explain what he meant by this argument. He could only say that a fundamental building block of our society would be changed and diluted, but he couldn't say how or why. What does he mean by "diluted?" I don't get it. It's not enough to simply say that it would be diluted, one must be prepared to say why, if one is to be heard with respect.

The state of Idaho Senate just voted today to change the state constitution to ban gay marriage. It will now go to the people to vote on the issue.

Given the far right wing conservative platform of this pathetic state I'm sure it will pass.

Years from now people will look back at times like this when it became popular for government to target gays by taking away their rights as a time similar to segregation of the blacks. People of the future will probably be amazed how small minded we are today.

You're totally right, roverroad. It's petty and prejudice in an attempt to glom anyone who isn't like the bigot into one narrow category. They try to disguise it in rhetoric but their true color is exposed -- drab green.

roverroad, I don't see the human species growing all that much in the future where it concerns bigotry. We may wish to think our species is growing in humanity and humility, but that just isn't so. As proof, look at all the hatred in this world. The wars/terrorisms that kills thousands. The tyrants who call themselves leaders that are responsible for misery and inhuman treatments for disagreeing on such innane issues as "free speech." Religions that subordinate women to wear scarves and hide their faces in public, and teach children that homosexuals make god angry. If some think we're the enlightened generation, we ain't started yet! Just read in today's newspaper that General Motors discriminated against blacks by charging a higher interest on their loans to buy a car. This world's all screwed up! We've got a long ways to go, baby.

i just find this whole 'concept' (to flater the word) of "SIN" fascinating;

'sin' is, is seems to me based upon descriptions, is 'others' doing something that the self appointed judge does not wish to do, but seems to give pleasure to the 'perpetrator' (this can't be permitted). Things, however, that do appeal to the 'judge', regardless of how harmful to others they may be, are considered to be perfectly 'natural' and 'normal' activities.

now, when it comes to 'Catholics' (Roman), their 'training' leads them to think ("forgive me father for i have sinned") that anything that they, themselves do that gives them pleasure, must have been a 'sin'!!

Seemed that way at the time, BoGoWo, says an ex.