|
Post by k on Aug 14, 2004 19:05:28 GMT -5
How can anyone support gay marriage? It would tie up the legal system. There is no sensible reason to justify this sick practice. BAN GAY MARRIAGE!
|
|
|
Post by well on Aug 15, 2004 2:22:31 GMT -5
It's now up to the courts to decide isn't it.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Aug 15, 2004 7:00:30 GMT -5
There is no sensible reason to justify this sick practice. oh really? I have a gay colleague and he married about a year ago. (legally here..) He seems to be very happy and I find it disrespectfull to entitle them being 'sick'. Why don't you respect gay people a little bit more?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 15, 2004 8:52:07 GMT -5
Guarp,
To help you understand, please substitute the word "adulterer" for "gay person". Sodomy and adultry are both sins which ought not be accepted. If we sinners can repent from our sins and trust in Jesus there is hope. It is not loving or helpful to legitimise or excuse that which is sin and ought to be repented for and turned from.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 15, 2004 10:40:08 GMT -5
To help you understand, please substitute the word "adulterer" for "gay person". This would be like substituting "adulterer" for "black person" in the 1960's. One has to do with having sex with someone of either sex that you are not married to and the other has to do with being an individual that is attracted to people of the same sex. You may consider both adultery and sodomy sins along with pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth but the thread is about the legality of same sex marriage. Unless I have misread the posts in this thread there was no mention of sex or sin of any kind but rather the legality of same sex marriage. If sodomy is a sin it does not only apply to same sex marriages. It is the act that is the sin and, in some places, the illegal activity. Depending on you definition of sodomy same sex unions between women might not be a problem. If you are looking at the legal definition of sodomy, which includes oral contact, I think there might be a lot of people guilty of sodomy. It has, at times, been extended to include French kissing. Personally, having the government decide what I can and can not do in the privacy of my bedroom is not something I could support. Who will be monitoring the activity to assure that it is legal? This is a very noble goal and each individual should seek to follow and live their lives in a manner that would have them turn away from what they consider sin and allow others to have that same privledge
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 15, 2004 10:42:20 GMT -5
It's now up to the courts to decide isn't it. In several counrties and in some states the courts have decided. Vermont amd Massachusetts both allow same sex civil unions.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 15, 2004 13:43:13 GMT -5
It has never been a sin to be a black person. It has always been and always will be a sin to commit adultry or sodomy regardless of how accepting we as are of the sin.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 15, 2004 15:59:46 GMT -5
It has never been a sin to be a black person. It has always been and always will be a sin to commit adultry or sodomy regardless of how accepting we as are of the sin. Robb It has never been a sin to be a "gay person" either. According to you the sin is sodomy. That is, I believe, a sexual act that could be committed by either homosexuals or heterosexuals. Just to keep the discussion clear perhaps any of the various sexual acts that you consider to be a sin could be differentiated from the legal issues of same sex marriage.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 15, 2004 17:05:25 GMT -5
It has never been a sin to be a black person. It has always been and always will be a sin to commit adultry or sodomy regardless of how accepting we as are of the sin. Robb I suspect the writer was refering to interracial marriages, not to merely being of a certain race. Those were not recognized by some southern states until the 1960's. inatent
|
|
|
Post by well on Aug 16, 2004 10:42:27 GMT -5
Some states have made it legal. Now the Federal Government will make its decision. Then the states may have to change thier laws as federal law supercedes state laws. I hope that this issue is soon voted on by the supreme court that it may be decided for good. Either way, just get it done so that we may adjust and get used to the decision and move on. We have many many other issues as well as this to think about in this country.
Robb - the post was not about sin. It was about being gay, and if gay marriage should be legal. You are so quick to quote religious reasons for everthing. Just look at it from a different angle. We all know how you feel about it from your belief stand point. And that is ok. You are entitled as is every other legal US citizen or resident to make up their own decision. You will always think the way you do, and others will always think the way they do. The law will make things legal - not necessarily moral. This legal issue needs to be resolved. There is more to gay marriage than a man gets to marry a man or a woman gets to marry a woman. In this day and age much of the issue is about benifits and being able to approve emergency medical needs, as well as the issues that any legal union faces.
And adultery is not the same as sodomy. You may be a man and wife and partake in the same act - is that a sin? No. It is sexual position between two lovers. Not that I condone or don't condone anal sexual activity - but it is a choice between those involved.
I believe that gay marriage really might be better stated as gay union. Gay unions could be set up by legal definition and then gay couples would be able to benifit from the legal union laws rather than by marriage laws that need to stay as they are - man and wife. If you want to - go back back back - Cain took a wife, not a parnter, so it wasn't just those who were doing God's will that called marriage an institution between man and woman.
As far as being black - perhaps if the poster had stated that at one time in this country blacks were not granted the same rights - as woman were not. Blacks at one time were considered no better than animals and were indeed treated as livestock and sold as same. Woman were always treated as second class citizens. Laws and rights passed made the difference in the changes for these people. The same needs to be addressed LEGALLY in regards to Gay unions.
Sex is a right. Being gay is not my forte, but it is someone elses choice. We live amonst many peoples who do not believe as we do. Sexual preference is only one difference. We do not like or approve what our neighbor does. We do not have to follow suit, but we must live by the law to prevent anarchy. This is another reason this issue must be settled.
|
|
|
Post by 'Guest' on Aug 16, 2004 19:58:47 GMT -5
Some states have made it legal. Now the Federal Government will make its decision. ... <snip> ... This is another reason this issue must be settled. Oh no - a logical person! Kiss all of the rest of the babble goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 16, 2004 23:33:35 GMT -5
Well well,
I see that you are quick to give your religious reasons for everything too. You see, all men are religious... they either worship the creator or the creation.
Btw, what is the basis for your religious beliefs? By what standard do you determine what is right and wrong?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Lookup on Aug 17, 2004 9:06:35 GMT -5
Well well, I see that you are quick to give your religious reasons for everything too. You see, all men are religious... they either worship the creator or the creation. Btw, what is the basis for your religious beliefs? By what standard do you determine what is right and wrong? Robb religious? 1) Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity. 2) Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text. 3) Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty. There might be some who would not agree with you about the religious comment. Just because you worship whatever it is you believe in there may be people who do not worship.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 17, 2004 9:28:15 GMT -5
All people worship, believe, serve, show reverence, etc to something. While it is true that it may not be to the God of the Bible, all do serve some god. For example, if we follow the lusts of our flesh, that is our god. If we follow the ideas of the men of our culture, then they are our gods. This fact is true even if we unaware of who we are serving or worshiping. It is either the creation or the Creator.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by well on Aug 17, 2004 12:53:03 GMT -5
"All people worship, believe, serve, show reverence, etc to something"
No.
You are stating something that is not fact.
|
|
Well I have to agree
Guest
|
Post by Well I have to agree on Aug 17, 2004 13:03:55 GMT -5
"All people worship, believe, serve, show reverence, etc to something" No. You are stating something that is not fact. it is a belief Robb has stated not a fact. Although I see we have moved from saying that "You see, all men are religious... they either worship the creator or the creation.' to including 'believe, serve, show reverence, etc" along with the original mention of worship. I believe, and by so stating would have to agree, that people believe in something. Worship - I do not believe that. On another topic - what about the legality of same sex marriages? That seems to have been skipped over when someone mentioned that even though sodomy was a sin that gay marriage was not really about sex at all.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 17, 2004 13:57:55 GMT -5
Well well, this fact should be self evident. For example, is their anyone who doesn't believe in something? Even if they believed in nothing, they would still still believe in something (nothing). I suppose the confusion may be coming with the definition of the word worship. Most people think of a church building when they think of the term. Webster however says: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>. That includes, as Webster states, the dollar. It would also include such things as ourselves, others people, man's ideas, nature, knowledge, traditions, etc, etc. All of these things are part of Gods creation which many of us worshp instead of the Creator. Rom 1.25
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 17, 2004 14:09:55 GMT -5
I think the issue is more about what ought to be legal than what actually is. The courts will rule and we will all have to deal with what comes down. However, just because a court says something is "legal" does not necessarily make it right. The problem that we seem to be comming back to is what will be our standard of what is right and wrong? Untill we agree on this larger question, we have no basis for agreement on the smaller issues. One follows their feelings, the other the culture, the other traditions, the other the Bible, the other the courts in their own country, the other the courts in their opposing country, etc. What is the standard?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 17, 2004 14:22:56 GMT -5
Well well, this fact should be self evident. For example, is their anyone who doesn't believe in something? Even if they believed in nothing, they would still still believe in something (nothing). If you are asking about the second list you posted I have to agree with the above posters. People believe in something only if it is the fact that an object fall to the ground if droppd. Note the modifying words - extravagent and esteem. There are some, without doubt, who live their lives worshiping something or other. I do not think you can support your original claim that this is the case for all people.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 17, 2004 14:27:21 GMT -5
I think the issue is more about what ought to be legal than what actually is. The question was why would there be any reason to think a same sex marriage ought not to be legal. Again, why should a legal bond between two women be any less legal than the same legal bond between a man and a woman? I believe that is the question to you on the table. You are looking for universal ethical standards?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 17, 2004 14:35:44 GMT -5
The Bible ought to be the stardard as I believe it to be God's Word for His people.
Present, without asking another question, could you please tell me what is your standard of truth and of right and wrong?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by To Robb on Aug 17, 2004 17:03:34 GMT -5
"The Bible ought to be the stardard as I believe it to be God's Word for His people."
Again, stated as you belive. Not all who believe in God worship as you. Not all believe in the Bible. Not all believe in the same heaven as you. All a choice and neither of you could most likely ever convince the other that the other is wrong. As long as we know in our own lives what is important to us.
Be glad you live in a country where you are indeed free to believe or not to believe.
Your standard is yours. Someone else's is theirs. God's standard - that is a totally different matter in itself.
Isn't faith a marvel?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 17, 2004 17:08:00 GMT -5
Sure. And what may I ask, is your standard? Robb
|
|
|
Post by To Robb on Aug 17, 2004 18:07:14 GMT -5
No. My standards do not need to be shared with you. I do not intend to justify my own beliefs. I do not feel the need to. Just know that I respect your opinion, and your values are admirable.
Take care.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 17, 2004 21:56:04 GMT -5
The Bible ought to be the stardard as I believe it to be God's Word for His people. Present, without asking another question, could you please tell me what is your standard of truth and of right and wrong? Robb I have always been fond of the simplicity and truth found in what has become known as the Golden Rule. It is one of the few ideas that can be found in the writings of most major religions. ChristianityAll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1 ConfucianismDo not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2 BuddhismHurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1 HinduismThis is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517 IslamNo one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah JudaismWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id TaoismRegard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien ZoroastrianismThat nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5 Now will you let us know why you think same sex marriage is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 18, 2004 10:49:34 GMT -5
First, are you saying that the golden rule is your standard of right and wrong or are you just "fond" of the rule? Secondly, do you believe the golden rule to be more legitimate or full of truth than the idea of survival of the fittest? If so, why? Would you attempt to impose your "rule" on me if I believed that my superior strenth entitled me to eliminate you on the basis of SOTF?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 18, 2004 16:51:25 GMT -5
First, are you saying that the golden rule is your standard of right and wrong or are you just "fond" of the rule? I use the golden rule as a means to determine my behavior. I would not walk into someone's home and strike them in the head with a bat because I don't want them to do that to me. It is simple. The golden rule is a guide. It does not determine right and wrong. The person applying it determines what they consider right or wrong. In the end, survival of the fittest will determine who will survive. The trick is determining what traits make the organism the fittest. If it came down to a matter of survival and you had superior strength I guess you would emliminate me and there would be little I could do. This is not, however, the meaning of the phrase survival of the fittest. According to Spencer survival of the fittest is not a test of strength at all. The best chance of survival would be to follow the golden rule. Robb, do you think you will ever address the question that has been asked of you or will you continue to skirt the issue? Why do you oppose same sex marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 18, 2004 17:27:28 GMT -5
I was actually hoping to get a more clear understanding of your standard of truth in order to establish a foundation for further discussion. It appears however, that you do not have a standard of right and wrong outside yourself. Btw, you can probably figure out why I oppose sodomite marriage since you understand my basis for right and wrong to be the Bible. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter what I think about the issue, it only matters how God views of the matter. That view is pretty clear from a reading of the Scriptures. If you need direction in finding the pertainate passages, I would be happy to help, however I suspect that since you reject my standard of right and wrong and I reject yours (or lack thereof), that we really have little basis for a continued dicussion of the matter. We will only continue to talk past one another untill we agree on some basis of truth, which doesn't appear likely. I will be gone for a week on vacation. See ya'll later. Robb
|
|