Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
... to add it to mine.
You said that I didn't want marriage for homosexuals. Which is not the case. If you choose to pretend that you answered me with something different, then that's up to you.
So, I shall quote you: "The line between discrimination and opinion is a very thin one. I don't see how you're not discriminating here since you've offered no reasoning for why gay's ought not be married and addressed none of my points. It was a lengthy post so I can sympathize with not reading it entirely. "
I did give you reasons for my religious opinion, which you ignored. I said that in my church, the homosexual act is against God's word. To expand upon that in a (possibly pointless, given your inability to read) attempt to help you understand: since homosexual sex is, in my church, against the Word of God, officiating a marriage of two homosexual people would be saying that the relationship is fine in the eyes of the church, that the church is happy with them having sex. My church is not happy with that, because (I can say this ad infinitum if you like) we believe it does not fit in with the rules that God has given us to live by in His Word. That is my church's rules, and people who don't like them don't have to be in that church. There's no requirement to be part of it. It's a choice. It's like belonging to a club.
Since living in a particular country isn't anywhere near as much of a choice, mostly being an accident of birth, governments should ensure there is a state provision of marriage to all people who wish to get married, as consenting adults.
But that does not extend to private clubs which have no state sanctioning, no public service factor, and no requirement to belong. It's not like having a job, which you need to make money to keep you alive. It's not like going to a doctor, which helps you stay healthy and alive (although that's a bit funny to be writing to an American), and it's not like public transport, which enables necessary movement from place to place. It's an extra, another of life's choices. It doesn't (necessarily) keep you alive, fed, healthy, etc. It's for personal enjoyment. And the state has no right to decide what goes on there, unless what does go on trangresses a person or their possession.
You said that I didn't want marriage for homosexuals. Which is not the case. If you choose to pretend that you answered me with something different, then that's up to you.
So, I shall quote you: "The line between discrimination and opinion is a very thin one. I don't see how you're not discriminating here since you've offered no reasoning for why gay's ought not be married and addressed none of my points. It was a lengthy post so I can sympathize with not reading it entirely. "
I did give you reasons for my religious opinion, which you ignored. I said that in my church, the homosexual act is against God's word. To expand upon that in a (possibly pointless, given your inability to read) attempt to help you understand: since homosexual sex is, in my church, against the Word of God, officiating a marriage of two homosexual people would be saying that the relationship is fine in the eyes of the church, that the church is happy with them having sex. My church is not happy with that, because (I can say this ad infinitum if you like) we believe it does not fit in with the rules that God has given us to live by in His Word. That is my church's rules, and people who don't like them don't have to be in that church. There's no requirement to be part of it. It's a choice. It's like belonging to a club.
Since living in a particular country isn't anywhere near as much of a choice, mostly being an accident of birth, governments should ensure there is a state provision of marriage to all people who wish to get married, as consenting adults.
But that does not extend to private clubs which have no state sanctioning, no public service factor, and no requirement to belong. It's not like having a job, which you need to make money to keep you alive. It's not like going to a doctor, which helps you stay healthy and alive (although that's a bit funny to be writing to an American), and it's not like public transport, which enables necessary movement from place to place. It's an extra, another of life's choices. It doesn't (necessarily) keep you alive, fed, healthy, etc. It's for personal enjoyment. And the state has no right to decide what goes on there, unless what does go on trangresses a person or their possession.
No. You misunderstand. Again.
Though perhaps my phrasing muddled things a bit. In my FP I referred to "state marriages" as you call them as civil unions, to avoid the confusion between religious marriages and state marriages. Often talk about gay marriage revolves around two people talking around this terms. When I said you didn't support gay marriage, I meant the kind that aren't civil unions.
Furthermore, my point is that your church is discriminating against gays by saying they can't get married.
I'm not sure which church you belong to, but many many churches marry sinners, with full knowledge that marriage may only encourage their sinning in the future.
People have brought up a lot about the church "sanctioning" homosexuality as a problem with gay marriage. But the bible also says "sex for fun" is a sin too. Nowadays, marriage means lots of "sex for fun" (hopefully) as well. But the church wouldn't dare not marry these people because there are simply too many. Some churches even pass out condoms when premarital sex is a sin. This too is sanctioning a sin.
"Sanctioned" sins happen all the time.
So why all the grief with gay marriage? Especially when we take into account that there are only about three lines in the bible referring to homosexuality (NONE of which are jesus's words) and hundreds more on accepting others, that we are all sinners, and even jesus's own words on accepting outcasts.
The only explanation I can think of is a subtle homophobia.
Now, I'm not saying you're homophobic, only that the people that make/made decisions in your church probably are. At the very least, they lived in an era where homosexuality wasn't as pressing an issue.
The word of God may call homosexuality a sin. But the word of God also calls premarital sex, adultery, and loads of other stuff sins too. Yet every day, churches pass out condoms and allow divorces when affairs were involved.
So what real grounds do churches have for banning gay marriage?
Does gay marriage somehow alter the essence of christianity in ANY way?
The answer, in a word, is no.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Gay Marriage
- 12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
2015 Views
I disagree on the latter part
- 12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
1353 Views
I follow your point...
- 12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
1342 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
- 12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
1377 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
- 12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
1309 Views
You didn't read my post.
- 12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
1227 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
- 12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
1302 Views
Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1252 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
1252 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1222 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
1222 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
626 Views
You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1356 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
1356 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1208 Views
- 12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
1208 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1271 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
1271 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1105 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
1105 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
1364 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
- 12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
1270 Views
Also
- 12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
1317 Views
And wrong again.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1337 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
1337 Views
Not so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1172 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
1172 Views
Yes, so quick!
- 12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
1120 Views
Let's be reasonable here
- 12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
1232 Views
Why do you get to judge?
- 12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
1266 Views
I don't
- 12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
1151 Views
OK.
- 12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
1261 Views
Re: OK.
- 12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
1222 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
1166 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
- 12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
1279 Views
Then please stop.
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1227 Views
- 12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
1227 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
- 12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
1177 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
- 12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
1199 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
1082 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
- 12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
1208 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
1185 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
- 12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
1284 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
- 12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
1183 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
1267 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
- 12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
1178 Views
Gah.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
1134 Views
What a mature response.
- 12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
1334 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
- 12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
1133 Views
Um
- 12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
1284 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
598 Views
It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
1126 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
1201 Views
Re: It makes no sense
- 12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
1294 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
1117 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
- 12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
1227 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
1284 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
- 13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
1236 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that!
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
597 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1029 Views
*NM*
- 13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
597 Views
- 13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
1029 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
- 13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
564 Views
Yes
- 13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
1067 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
- 12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
1102 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
- 12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
1306 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
- 12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
1129 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
- 12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
1176 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
- 12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
1185 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
- 12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
1166 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
- 12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
1229 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
- 12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
1064 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
- 12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
1081 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
- 12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
1112 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
- 12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
1118 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
- 12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
1242 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
- 12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
1175 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
- 12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
1265 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
- 12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
1124 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
662 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
642 Views
*NM*
- 12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
642 Views
Simples
- 12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
1200 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
- 12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
1166 Views
So.
- 14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
1049 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
- 14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
1561 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1380 Views
- 15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
1380 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
519 Views
I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
997 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
- 12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
1192 Views
A couple of things
- 12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
1181 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
1309 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
- 12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
1197 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
- 12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
1130 Views
One point about Prop. 8
- 12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
1164 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
- 12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
1091 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
- 12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
1185 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
- 12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
1000 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
- 12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
1165 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
- 12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
1311 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
- 12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
954 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
- 12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
1266 Views
You are absolutely wrong
- 12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
1206 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
- 13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
1136 Views
Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
1157 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
- 12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
1211 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
- 12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
657 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
622 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
1368 Views
+1
- 12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
1316 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
- 12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
1237 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
- 12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
1067 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
- 12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
1243 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
606 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
- 12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
629 Views
It's not snarky.
- 12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
1218 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
- 12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
1476 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
- 12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
1117 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
- 12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
1301 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
- 12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
1167 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
- 12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
1093 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
- 12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
1188 Views
So then two things come to mind...
- 12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
1171 Views
Only two?
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1162 Views
- 12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
1162 Views
That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
1374 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
- 13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
1214 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
- 13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
1159 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
- 13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
1168 Views
Actually, I agree with that
- 12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
1060 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
- 12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
1158 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
- 12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
1272 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
- 12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
655 Views
Starting again
- 12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
1284 Views
Not at all
- 12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
1187 Views
Re: Not at all
- 13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
986 Views
Agreed *NM*
- 13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
499 Views
Oh dear
- 13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
1084 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
- 12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
1236 Views

*NM*
*NM*
*NM*