The Real Way to Protect Marriage

[Straw Man]

Race is not in the same universe with homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, and transsexuals.  It is absolutely absurd for people to call those opposed to lifestyle choices bigots. 

once again - absolutely no proof of choice

but - even if it were it's irrelevent because homosexuals have equal protection under the law and as you've pointed out - marriage is defined by the state therefore religious objections and logically flawed arguments of "choice" are irrelevent.

I have given some more thought recently as to why people such as yourself cling to the logically absurd claim that sexuality is a choice.

I think it's because there are so many repressed gay christians who are trying so hard to choose to be straight that they've convinced themself that being gay must also be a choice.

You know what I'm talking about right? 

I mean guys like this

[CQ]

I am on the fence about gay marriage. I am all for equal human rights for all, and hate discrimination in all forms, but it opens up a can of worms imo. The legalities alone...so can I, as a straight chick, 'marry' my best friend just to get her citizenship? Marriage of conveniences I think would be more common...that said marriage in general is a mess, that's the truth. The meaning "till death to us part" has been replaced by many till "to divorce do us part". Vows are meaningless to many, stats show that, so those crying about it ruins the sanctity of marriage, um - thats done anyway really.

[Straw Man]

I am on the fence about gay marriage. I am all for equal human rights for all, and hate discrimination in all forms, but it opens up a can of worms imo. The legalities alone...so can I, as a straight chick, 'marry' my best friend just to get her citizenship? Marriage of conveniences I think would be more common...that said marriage in general is a mess, that's the truth. The meaning "till death to us part" has been replaced by many till "to divorce do us part". Vows are meaningless to many, stats show that, so those crying about it ruins the sanctity of marriage, um - thats done anyway really.

isn't it illegal to get married soley for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?

[Dos Equis]

once again - absolutely no proof of choice

but - even if it were it's irrelevent because homosexuals have equal protection under the law and as you've pointed out - marriage is defined by the state therefore religious objections and logically flawed arguments of "choice" are irrelevent.

I have given some more thought recently as to why people such as yourself cling to the logically absurd claim that sexuality is a choice.

I think it's because there are so many repressed gay christians who are trying so hard to choose to be straight that they've convinced themself that being gay must also be a choice.

You know what I'm talking about right? 

I mean guys like this

[Gasp]  A Christian hypocrite.  Go figure.  There are plenty of them, just as there are secular, atheist, Muslim, etc. hypocrites.  

Objection to homosexual marriage comes from far more than "religious" people.  The votes on this issue are overwhelming.  The contention that objection to homosexual marriage is confined to Christians, Republicans, and/or conservatives is factually incorrect.  

In any event, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to voice their views--religious based or not--at the ballot box.  If you or anyone else disagrees with their viewpoint, then go vote.    

    

[CQ]

isn't it illegal to get married soley for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?

Yes, but don't people do it? Like all the time?

[don't mean to sound snide btw, for some reason can't think of a way to say it 'unsnidely']

[Straw Man]

[Gasp]  A Christian hypocrite.  Go figure.  There are plenty of them, just as there are secular, atheist, Muslim, etc. hypocrites.  

Objection to homosexual marriage comes from far more than "religious" people.  The votes on this issue are overwhelming.  The contention that objection to homosexual marriage is confined to Christians, Republicans, and/or conservatives is factually incorrect.  

In any event, Christians have just as much right as anyone else to voice their views--religious based or not--at the ballot box.  If you or anyone else disagrees with their viewpoint, then go vote.    

I don't recall saying objection to gay marriage was strictly the confined to Christians, Republicans, etc...  There are many different paths to bigotry and they are all based on the individuals personal objection to the free will to the actions of two consenting adults

The "go vote" argument is interesting diversion

Are you saying that as long as the majority agrees on something that it must be right and just?  (not suggesting you are - just asking)

[Straw Man]

Yes, but don't people do it? Like all the time?

[don't mean to sound snide btw, for some reason can't think of a way to say it 'unsnidely']

I'm sure "they" do but isn't it still illegal (though like anything else that is a crime you must get caught)

[Dos Equis]

I don't recall saying objection to gay marriage was strictly the confined to Christians, Republicans, etc...  There are many different paths to bigotry and they are all based on the individuals personal objection to the free will to the actions of two consenting adults

The "go vote" argument is interesting diversion

Are you saying that as long as the majority agrees on something that it must be right and just?  (not suggesting you are - just asking)

Are people who oppose polygamy bigots?

That's how we operate:  majority (or super majority) rules.  If you don't like something, pass a law.  If you want something, pass a law.  If it involves a "fundamental right," amend the state or U.S. Constitution. 

We regulate lifestyle choices by popular vote all the time.   

[Straw Man]

Are people who oppose polygamy bigots?  - I've never thought about it but if their only opposition was based on an objection about the definition of marriage and therefore some perceived insult to the objectors religious belief... then I'd say YES... but one thing at a time.  I'd also say stop conflating the marriage of two people with anything but that.  Gay marriage is not polygamy, it's not people marrying animals or inanimate objects,etc.....

That's how we operate:  majority (or super majority) rules.  If you don't like something, pass a law.  If you want something, pass a law.  If it involves a "fundamental right," amend the state or U.S. Constitution -  I'm sure you would agree that there is no mention of marriage in the consitution and also that the authors were surely aware of the concept and rigours of marriage and also very aware of religion, morals, whatever you want to call it, etc...

and yes, I know how it works.  I asked you if you thought passing a law made something just or right  or does that not even matter i.e. some stuff is "right" until it's voted :wrong" and vice versa. 

We regulate lifestyle choices by popular vote all the time.   ok - can you show me some examples that are germane to the topic which I assume is gays who want to be treated as equal to you and want to get married

- [/size]

[Dos Equis]

Not every law is "right," but it's still the law.  If you disagree with it, then work to change it. 

[Straw Man]

Not every law is "right," but it's still the law.  If you disagree with it, then work to change it. 

no joke

what law are we talking about?"

[loco]

I'm referring to divorce as Jesus defined it.. with "just-cause" being a very thin list. Accordingly, anyone who divorces outside the list is an adulterer, and anyone who marries such a person is also an adulterer. Adultery is one of the Big Ten no-nos whereas homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Yet Churches are filled with all manner of adulterers, yet doesn't seem to warrant a blip, whereas homosexuality seems to bring people out in savage droves.  Why is that?  Because it's convenient and hypocritical. 

Deedee, you are right.  Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery.  And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt.  Many Christian ministers would refuse to marry a same sex couple, but some of those same ministers would not refuse to marry couples where one or both have been divorced before, thus these ministers are helping these couples commit adultery by Jesus' definition. 

Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is. 

Yes, I agree with you Deedee!  We Christians can be very hypocritical sometimes.  I agree with Straw Man too, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned, at least within the Christian church.  Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin.  I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but they do a much better job at opposing divorce and re-marriage of divorced couples than we Protestants do.

[CQ]

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery.  And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt. 

Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is. 

Exactly.

Many "Christians" go around fornicating, getting divorced but act like they are somehow not sinning.

Amuses me how people disregard the 10 commandments for themself, then use the bible to 'cast a stone' at someone else.

[Straw Man]

Loco,

What are you thoughts on Dobson's advice on how to treat and prevent gayness in young boys.   Do you think it makes sense? 

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=221415.0

[Dos Equis]

Deedee, you are right.  Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention adultery.  And Jesus did say that if a person divorces and re-marries, that person and the person he/she marries commit adultery, something that many Christians do over and over without any guilt.  Many Christian ministers would refuse to marry a same sex couple, but some of those same ministers would not refuse to marry couples where one or both have been divorced before, thus these ministers are helping these couples commit adultery by Jesus' definition. 

Homosexuality, as you said, is not addressed specifically within the 10 commandments, but adultery is. 

Yes, I agree with you Deedee!  We Christians can be very hypocritical sometimes.  I agree with Straw Man too, that those Christians who put so much time and energy into opposing same sex marriage, should put just as much, if not more time and energy into getting divorce banned, at least within the Christian church.  Or they should at least show more opposition to Christian ministers marrying couples who have been divorced, since Biblically that is a sin.  I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, but they do a much better job at opposing divorce and re-marriage of divorced couples than we Protestants do.

Maybe this is more appropriate for the religion board, but I've had a number of discussions about this.  Even my wife and I disagree over this interpretation.  She takes the literal view (divorce only in cases of adultery).  I take what I see as the commonsense view that there are other grounds for divorce, including things like abuse.  I can't imagine a woman who is being abused by her husband is required to stay in the marriage and/or remain single if she divorces her abusive husband.   

[Straw Man]

Maybe this is more appropriate for the religion board, but I've had a number of discussions about this.  Even my wife and I disagree over this interpretation.  She takes the literal view (divorce only in cases of adultery).  I take what I see as the commonsense view that there are other grounds for divorce, including things like abuse.  I can't imagine a woman who is being abused by her husband is required to stay in the marriage and/or remain single if she divorces her abusive husband.   

I started this thread on the politics board because I was attempting to make an ironic statement about the real danger to marriage....in contrast to the fake danger of gay weddings.

As usual - many religious types don't get irony and assumed my suggestion was serious.

Here's another literal and theologically "sound" point of view of spousal abuse:

"One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.

http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675

[loco]

As usual - many religious types don't get irony and assumed my suggestion was serious.

I do get the irony of your suggestion, but I do agree with it even though you don't mean it.

[Straw Man]

I do get the irony of your post, but I do agree with your idea even though you don't mean it.

yeah - I actually find you to be one of the more thoughtful and introspective of the religious types on this board.   I don't agree with you very much but I can see that you make an effort to look at all sides

[loco]

yeah - I actually find you to be one of the more thoughtful and introspective of the religious types on this board.   I don't agree with you very much but I can see that you make an effort to look at all sides

I'm only trying to stick to the Bible, no matter what religious leaders and politicians may say, and I try to be consistent about this.   When people like you or Deedee, here or elsewhere, try to point out to me where I am being inconsistent about this, I listen.  Sometimes you may be right, while other times you may be wrong.  But the reason we disagree on most things is because I believe in the Bible and you don't.

[Straw Man]

I'm only trying to stick to the Bible, no matter what religious leaders and politicians may say, and I try to be consistent about this.   When people like you or Deedee, here or elsewhere, try to point out to me where I am being inconsistent about this, I listen.  Sometimes you may be right, while other times you may be wrong.  But the reason we disagree on most things is because I believe in the Bible and you don't.

this is true

also, you attempt to "stick to the bible" is doomed because it's full of contradictions and also just some plain old crazy stuff.   If you followed the bible literally you would be in jail

[loco]

this is true

also, you attempt to "stick to the bible" is doomed because it's full of contradictions and also just some plain old crazy stuff.   If you followed the bible literally you would be in jail

And this is where you and I disagree big time, but this is beyond the scope of this thread and this board. 

[Straw Man]

fair enough - but you have to admit if you followed the bible literally - you would be in jail. 

[loco]

fair enough - but you have to admit if you followed the bible literally - you would be in jail.

I disagree and I believe you are mistaken.  You are probably taking things out of context, but you can try to prove me wrong.  I read and study the Bible daily, and I've yet to find something the Bible tells me to do which goes against current Venezuelan law, or current US law for that matter.  Now, if I were in the former Cuba, Russia or China, or if I were in the current Saudi Arabia or Iran, then I'd be in death row by now.  What the Bible tells me is to do good to other people and to do evil to nobody, but again, we should take this to the religion board.

[Straw Man]

I disagree and I believe you are mistaken.  You are probably taking things out of context, but you can try to prove me wrong.  I read and study the Bible daily, and I've yet to find something the Bible tells me to do which goes against current Venezuelan law, or current US law for that matter.  Now, if I were in the former Cuba, Russia or China, or if I were in the current Saudi Arabia or Iran, then I'd be in death row by now.  What the Bible tells me is to do good to other people and to do evil to nobody, but again, we should take this to the religion board.

have you participated in the stoning of any non-virgin women recently?

[loco]

have you participated in the stoning of any non-virgin women recently?

No.  There are many married women who are no longer virgins.  Why would I stone them?  Wanna take this to the religion board?