Moderator: TheMachine
because you might notice steve cooks dinner better than your wife and likes watching football with you on sundays...steve may cook and clean and like sports...Voronwë wrote:how does Bruce and Steve being married effect my wife and my marriage?
...you may just say "fuck the future of humanity! This is paradise!"Anf how much originality do you think Christianity can claim? They ripped off symbolism and myth from everyone they came in contact with, from the Egyptians to the Romans and the Celts. Not even the cross is an original symbol (was used by the Norse and Mithraic sects before its adoption by).Just how many truly original thoughts do you think people actually have?
.
Thats perfect Drustwyn. The whole point is for individuals to be able to live their lives with their beliefs and not have another set of individual's beliefs thrust upon them.Drustwyn wrote:
I have deep spiritual convictions that are very personal (and real) to me. I don't soap box, I don't try to convert my friends (or strangers), I don't go door-to-door, and I don't go to church. I just live my life, which is infused by an accepting spiritual belief system.
Totally agree, and fortunately there are checks and balances in place for exactly this type of bullshit. Of course it's a crapshoot as to whether or not 3/4 congress will lose their fucking minds too. Did I mention I hate politicians?kyoukan wrote:I don't even understand how he gets away with it. Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment.
i don't believe i ever said all christians are like that in any of my posts. just most or a lot, if any of mine came across like they were generalizing all christians i didn't mean it that way, but mine are specifically directed towards the ones that feel it is ok to take away or deny rights under the government to married gay couples-when it becomes allowed mainstream in every state or before that to deny the right to civil union via the government for those rights people have described ie medical decisions, property splitting, tax purposes etcDrustwyn wrote:I dont usually post on these type of argumentative threads... so I'm losing my virginity in a way
I have deep spiritual convictions that are very personal (and real) to me. I don't soap box, I don't try to convert my friends (or strangers), I don't go door-to-door, and I don't go to church. I just live my life, which is infused by an accepting spiritual belief system.
Though I have many Christian friends and family, I don't subscribe to mainstream Christianity, for many of the reasons pointed out above. There are probably more differences than similarities between us. I don't call myself a Christian, though at times, Christians and I have similar theological ideas. Jesus is cool with me and I'm cool with him.
Some of the negative statements in this thread that are directed toward Christians resonate strongly within. I couldn't agree more in some instances.
However, I don't think it's necessary (or even very constructive) to bash them. The same freedom that allows you to disagree with them, allows them to disagree with you - though I realize that isn't the point of many of the posts.
Not all Christians believe the same. Many Christians are gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. and support gay marriage. Some Christians may be completely indifferent to the topic, while the more vocal/extreme ones make them look like assholes. There are MANY different "versions" of Christianity, some of which are very accepting and supportive of such issues. There are also different takes on Biblical translations etc..
I guess my point is: It's very easy to bash Christians in general, but not necessarily constructive if you want to win them to your position or convince them of your point of view. I feel that bashing them in such manner is quite similar to how they bash gays. Just different sides of the fence.
In my view, labeling all Christians as naive, weak-minded, idiots, insensitive, backward, old-fashioned, etc. appears the same as Christians labeling all gays as pedophiles, demon-possessed, hypersensitive, flamboyant, perverts. Stereotypes and generalizations.
I feel a better start would be finding common ground, then working from there, knowing that it's alright to disagree.
Bush isn't the one trying to impose his "backwards morality"- it's the seven juges in Mass. who are trying to impose their "backwards morality." Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Two men or two women saying they love each other is NOT marriage. That's not "morality"- that's fact. There should never need to be any kind of amendment to state this, but unfortunately some people are on a moral crusade, determined to change how we think of homosexuality by changing the law, not by changing our hearts and minds.Aranuil wrote:Totally agree, and fortunately there are checks and balances in place for exactly this type of bullshit. Of course it's a crapshoot as to whether or not 3/4 congress will lose their fucking minds too. Did I mention I hate politicians?kyoukan wrote:I don't even understand how he gets away with it. Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment.
Now that seems like the acceptance of a 'gay union', in the bible none the less!1 Samuel 18: 1
1.And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 3
3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 4
4. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 20: 11
11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
1 Samuel 23: 16
16. And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
1 Samuel 20: 41
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
This is simply your opinion, not fact. Honestly you need to learn the difference. No matter how hard you believe it's fact, it's simply not.Brotha wrote:Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Two men or two women saying they love each other is NOT marriage. That's not "morality"- that's fact.
If the legislation of a state were to pass such a law that didn't conflict with any existing federal legislation, and as long as it's done in the privacy of their own home, and no people/small animals are hurt in the process the short answer is... Yes.Brotha wrote:There were lots of other things Native Americans practiced that aren't done by us. If 7 judges in Mass. decide that those are acceptable and should be practiced in a "progressive" society, should we be forced to swallow those too?
Again, who's religion? Which God? Honestly, you can take your pick, but it's just not that simple. We do not live in a Christian theocracy. While American is certainly influenced by 'tradition' and 'religion' which predates the bible, is not controlled by it. Your morality, is not the same as mine (just using you and I as examples here, not actually speaking about you and I), so we have a means to introduce laws that we can both live with comfortably.Brotha wrote:I know this may came as a shock to you with your narrowminded stereotypes, but I'm not exactly a religious fanatic. As I said before, marriage has as much to do with tradition as religion.
Marriage has never been anything but a woman and man uniting. It has never been two men or two women. When I say marriage is a man and a woman I'm basing it on what "marriage" IS. If you want to say that marriage should also be between two men and two women, you're basing that on your own opinion- I'm basing mine on fact.Aranuil wrote:This is simply your opinion, not fact. Honestly you need to learn the difference. No matter how hard you believe it's fact, it's simply not.
You're not, you're basing yours on tradition. Which is fine for YOU, but it's not fine to impose your definition of the word on other people. Marriage is nothing more than a word describing a relationship between two people. There's no reason that relationship can't be between two same sex individuals.Brotha wrote:Marriage has never been anything but a woman and man uniting. It has never been two men or two women. When I say marriage is a man and a woman I'm basing it on what "marriage" IS. If you want to say that marriage should also be between two men and two women, you're basing that on your own opinion- I'm basing mine on fact.Aranuil wrote:This is simply your opinion, not fact. Honestly you need to learn the difference. No matter how hard you believe it's fact, it's simply not.
Honestly I personally don't care, as long as no other people/people's interests, or animals are hurt in the process. Legally however, there are laws preventing that. Interestingly there are several cases in the bible of men taking multiple wives.Brotha wrote:So do you think a law stating a man can't have more than one wife is unconstitutional? If you don't, why not?
The impetus for the proposal of an amendment to the constitution is coming straight from the Christian coalition and Bush's desire to get votes and/or money from them for his upcoming campaign.Brotha wrote:And how is the christian faith imposing itself on the US government?
That is a blatant lie. Recall:Marriage has never been anything but a woman and man uniting. It has never been two men or two women. When I say marriage is a man and a woman I'm basing it on what "marriage" IS. If you want to say that marriage should also be between two men and two women, you're basing that on your own opinion- I'm basing mine on fact.
Which you recently tried to respond too?In many Native American societies, homosexual marriages were acceptable
mmkay, thats retarded.. those scriptures refer to a lifelong pledge between those two, it had nothing to do with a marital relationship between two men.Kguku wrote:Brotha, the fact that you just called our society "progressive" and then spout this backwards tripe of how gay marriages should not happen, is quite amusing.
You keep talking about how a marriage is between man and woman. How this was defined by Christianity, and has always been like this, however marriage has existed long before Christianity ever existed.
Now that seems like the acceptance of a 'gay union', in the bible none the less!1 Samuel 18: 1
1.And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 3
3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 4
4. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 20: 11
11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
1 Samuel 23: 16
16. And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
1 Samuel 20: 41
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
The sad thing is this boils down to arguing semantics over a definition of a word; and as we know, definitions tend to change throughout time, as defined and used by our society. Brotha you need to seriously open your eyes, and get rid of the backwater mentality that you have shown time and again in the numerous posts on this board.
Mmkay and you base that statement on...brego wrote:mmkay, thats retarded.. those scriptures refer to a lifelong pledge between those two, it had nothing to do with a marital relationship between two men.Kguku wrote:Brotha, the fact that you just called our society "progressive" and then spout this backwards tripe of how gay marriages should not happen, is quite amusing.
You keep talking about how a marriage is between man and woman. How this was defined by Christianity, and has always been like this, however marriage has existed long before Christianity ever existed.
Now that seems like the acceptance of a 'gay union', in the bible none the less!1 Samuel 18: 1
1.And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 3
3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 4
4. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 20: 11
11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
1 Samuel 23: 16
16. And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
1 Samuel 20: 41
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
The sad thing is this boils down to arguing semantics over a definition of a word; and as we know, definitions tend to change throughout time, as defined and used by our society. Brotha you need to seriously open your eyes, and get rid of the backwater mentality that you have shown time and again in the numerous posts on this board.
I can go look up several fucking passages if you want, but the relationship between David and Jonathan was consistently refered to as, "brotherly"...Arborealus wrote:Mmkay and you base that statement on...brego wrote:mmkay, thats retarded.. those scriptures refer to a lifelong pledge between those two, it had nothing to do with a marital relationship between two men.Kguku wrote:Brotha, the fact that you just called our society "progressive" and then spout this backwards tripe of how gay marriages should not happen, is quite amusing.
You keep talking about how a marriage is between man and woman. How this was defined by Christianity, and has always been like this, however marriage has existed long before Christianity ever existed.
Now that seems like the acceptance of a 'gay union', in the bible none the less!1 Samuel 18: 1
1.And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 3
3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18: 4
4. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 20: 11
11. And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field.
1 Samuel 23: 16
16. And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
1 Samuel 20: 41
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
The sad thing is this boils down to arguing semantics over a definition of a word; and as we know, definitions tend to change throughout time, as defined and used by our society. Brotha you need to seriously open your eyes, and get rid of the backwater mentality that you have shown time and again in the numerous posts on this board.
i should slap you for that postBrotha wrote:Bush isn't the one trying to impose his "backwards morality"- it's the seven juges in Mass. who are trying to impose their "backwards morality." Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Two men or two women saying they love each other is NOT marriage. That's not "morality"- that's fact. There should never need to be any kind of amendment to state this, but unfortunately some people are on a moral crusade, determined to change how we think of homosexuality by changing the law, not by changing our hearts and minds.Aranuil wrote:Totally agree, and fortunately there are checks and balances in place for exactly this type of bullshit. Of course it's a crapshoot as to whether or not 3/4 congress will lose their fucking minds too. Did I mention I hate politicians?kyoukan wrote:I don't even understand how he gets away with it. Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment.
Drasta wrote:i should slap you for that postBrotha wrote:Bush isn't the one trying to impose his "backwards morality"- it's the seven juges in Mass. who are trying to impose their "backwards morality." Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Two men or two women saying they love each other is NOT marriage. That's not "morality"- that's fact. There should never need to be any kind of amendment to state this, but unfortunately some people are on a moral crusade, determined to change how we think of homosexuality by changing the law, not by changing our hearts and minds.Aranuil wrote:Totally agree, and fortunately there are checks and balances in place for exactly this type of bullshit. Of course it's a crapshoot as to whether or not 3/4 congress will lose their fucking minds too. Did I mention I hate politicians?kyoukan wrote:I don't even understand how he gets away with it. Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment.
Slap yourself while you're at it. Brotha's opinion's might be stupid, but his facts aren't. If you don't agree with the definition of marriage as it stands, have the law re-write it. But as it stands, that is the current definition and the original.A fucking dictionary wrote:marriage
mar·riage n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
Drinsic Darkwood wrote:Slap yourself while you're at it. Brotha's opinion's might be stupid, but his facts aren't. If you don't agree with the definition of marriage as it stands, have the law re-write it. But as it stands, that is the current definition and the original.A fucking dictionary wrote:marriage
mar·riage n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
What facts has Brotha presented. All he has so far is his opinion based on his socialization.Drinsic Darkwood wrote:Brotha's opinion's might be stupid, but his facts aren't.
Considering we're talking about laws here, not ideals, and only one of those definitions contains the word legal, only one definition is applicable as far as the legal standpoint of this discussion goes.Arborealus wrote:Drinsic Darkwood wrote:Slap yourself while you're at it. Brotha's opinion's might be stupid, but his facts aren't. If you don't agree with the definition of marriage as it stands, have the law re-write it. But as it stands, that is the current definition and the original.A fucking dictionary wrote:marriage
mar·riage n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
2 of your 3 definitions refute you there drins...
That's not the definition in Websters dictionary. Clearly there is some variance about what constitutes marriage.Drinsic Darkwood wrote:The fact I'm talking about Aranuil is the current definition of marriage that Brotha argued.
In any case, legally, marriage is in fact defined as being between man and woman. Should it be changed? Sure, I don't see why not. Bush is delaying the inevitable and pissing off a ton in the process.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
