Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 19202122>
Poll Question: What is your opinion on this?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
55 [73.33%]
1 [1.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [10.67%]
9 [12.00%]
2 [2.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 13:12
I have spilled my seed so much that there's no way I can avoid hell Unhappy
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 2417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Smurph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 14:07
Let's take the anti-gay marriage argument here.

"But marriage is a sacred institution!!!"

But if it's so sacred, why is the government involved at all?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 16:15
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:

Let's take the anti-gay marriage argument here.

"But marriage is a sacred institution!!!"

But if it's so sacred, why is the government involved at all?


Nail, meet hammer. 
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 16:16
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:

Let's take the anti-gay marriage argument here.

"But marriage is a sacred institution!!!"

But if it's so sacred, why is the government involved at all?


Nail, meet hammer. 
Hits thumb.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site and Forum Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 13342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guldbamsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 16:50
Originally posted by Smurph Smurph wrote:

Let's take the anti-gay marriage argument here.

"But marriage is a sacred institution!!!"

But if it's so sacred, why is the government involved at all?


Because these days anything to do with real emotion and love has to run through either paper or some kind of media to be fathomed and recognised. 
Andy Warhol was right - even more than he'll ever know..
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 17:15
And this is why realizing that Homosexuality is not a sin is the Christ-like thing to do:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/opinion/2013/06/35548/
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site and Forum Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 13342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guldbamsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 17:55
If we leave god out of the equation for a minute, then what's to argue about regarding gay marriage? Like in a mere legal document proving you're spouses.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:03
Marriage is not sacred, nor is it an institution.
 
It is nothing to do with religion either - humans paired up in monogamous life-long relationships long before anyone had the bright idea of inventing formalised religion to control the masses. You don't need a legal piece of paper or the blessing of a (secular or theological) governing body to do that.
 
Nor is it about "love" since (again) that does not require official recognition by any controlling body, be that a church, a government, a tribal leader, the group elders or family and kinship.
 
Over the course of history the formalised side of marriage has been about the distribution of wealth, property and power, which has brought us to the current state of marriage as a legal contract between two people, therefore: it's about hereditary, genealogy and bloodlines; it's about inheritance and the recognition of legitimate heirs and dependants; it's about "next-of-kin" status for non-blood relatives; it's about belonging to a family, a tribe and a community; it's the formation of alliances and partnerships; it is about taxation and other monetary allowances/benefits; it's about parental obligations should the marriage fail; it's about the ugly side of divorce and alimony; it's about paternity and maternity; and it's such legal concessions as the husband-wife privilege (for those who don't know what that means - in common law, ie that judicial legal system practiced in the USA and UK, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner) ... All of which is why the marriage is enshrined in civil law, and hence why government (ie the law-maker) is involved and why all national law on marriage is connected to international law.
 
The current status of religion in this legal system is now tokenism. The administrative control religion once held over the union of marriage has long since been passed over to the official legal system of a nation (which for all intents and purposes we call "government").
 
Marriage is a legal contract - which is why there is a legal marriage certificate - if it were a purely religious ceremony you'd get a sappy celebration card with some apt bon-mot from the scriptures issued by your parish church like they do with a christening, baptism or confirmation certificate, and it would have no legal "value". A marriage certificate is a legal document, just as birth certificate and a death certificate are legal documents - it is not the membership card to a "sacred institution".
 
This is why secular marriage exists, this is why non-religious people get married and this is why gays want to get married.
 
 


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31721
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:04
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

And this is why realizing that Homosexuality is not a sin is the Christ-like thing to do:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/opinion/2013/06/35548/


I have a lot of issues with that article, but the notion that choosing to be a Christian means eschewing a lot of things is not one of them.

Did you actually read the full account from the mother or just the excerpt?

Quote
Though our hearts may have been good (we truly thought what we were doing was loving), we did not even give Ryan a chance to wrestle with God, to figure out what HE believed God was telling him through scripture about his sexuality. We had believed firmly in giving each of our four children the space to question Christianity, to decide for themselves if they wanted to follow Jesus, to truly OWN their own faith. But we were too afraid to give Ryan that room when it came to his sexuality, for fear that he’d make the wrong choice.



Their other children could have been wrestling with very dangerous concepts, but making out with a guy was off limits and required intervention?

Quote

So, for the first six years, he tried to choose Jesus. Like so many others before him, he pleaded with God to help him be attracted to girls



Since when is being attracted to girls a prerequisite to "choosing Jesus?"


Quote

But nothing changed. God didn’t answer his prayer – or ours – though we were all believing with faith that the God of the Universe – the God for whom NOTHING is impossible – could easily make Ryan straight. But He did not.

Never figured God was in the business of making gay people straight.  Even if He did, what then?  Do you get eternal reward for being heterosexual?

This family having a son who fancied men should have been the least of their doctrinal worries.





Edited by Epignosis - June 05 2013 at 18:06
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:06
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

If we leave god out of the equation for a minute, then what's to argue about regarding gay marriage? Like in a mere legal document proving you're spouses.

The problem is that you're never going to convince certain people if you leave God out of it.  You're right, there is NO logical reason against marriage equality.  None.  At all.  But that's not enough for fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is a cancer that has infected churches and denominations all over the country of America thanks to the Republican party using the push-back against abortion to fuel anger.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31721
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:12
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:


fundamentalism is a cancer


Is this okay to say here?

Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site and Forum Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 13342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guldbamsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

If we leave god out of the equation for a minute, then what's to argue about regarding gay marriage? Like in a mere legal document proving you're spouses.

The problem is that you're never going to convince certain people if you leave God out of it.  You're right, there is NO logical reason against marriage equality.  None.  At all.  But that's not enough for fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is a cancer that has infected churches and denominations all over the country of America thanks to the Republican party using the push-back against abortion to fuel anger.


I think the main reason for this not happening, is the unhealthy links the US government has tying religion and federal law together in one big melting pot. Truly a case of apples and oranges if you ask me.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:35
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:


fundamentalism is a cancer


Is this okay to say here?


I said "fundamentalism", not "fundamentalists" - notice I am identifying an "ism" as harmful to those who believe it.  Ask Frank Schaeffer - one of the former founders of the Religious Right.  His autobiography (which he prefers to call a memoir), "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All of It) Back", is quite a compelling story.  Beliefs affect personality and demeanor.  If you believe God actually wanted people to annihilate those who didn't share their beliefs, you won't think twice about raining down hellfire upon your "enemies" on the other side of the world.  But if your God is love, and showed it by emptying Himself of all power and even forsaking life, then forgiving those who hung Him on the cross (after commanding us to love our enemies), then you'll actually look at the wars we've been engaged in and think "oh my...is this moral?  I don't know if this is right...."
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31721
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 18:58
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:


fundamentalism is a cancer


Is this okay to say here?


I said "fundamentalism", not "fundamentalists" - notice I am identifying an "ism" as harmful to those who believe it. 


How is that a distinction?  If you are calling fundamentalism a cancer, then you are calling fundamentalists proponents of a cancer, am I right?  Your whole quote:


Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:


The problem is that you're never going to convince certain people if you leave God out of it.  You're right, there is NO logical reason against marriage equality.  None.  At all.  But that's not enough for fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is a cancer that has infected churches and denominations all over the country of America thanks to the Republican party using the push-back against abortion to fuel anger.


So you clearly mean people who have corrupted institutions, not a set of beliefs that are "harmful to those who believe it."

If I had said Islam was a cancer, but then said I went back and said I meant Islam was a cancer because people believed in it, but not Muslims, who were just victims of their cancerous beliefs, would that be okay?

Just because you have an opinion regarding a religious movement doesn't mean you get to call it a cancer.  Not here anyway, as I understand the rules.  If I am wrong, then I'd like to an admin to please tell me otherwise.

And I don't need to ask Frank S. anything.  I can read and form my own opinions.  Wink
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 19:14
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Onan's sin was not the "spilling of seed," per se; rather, the context of the passage suggests that his sin was the shirking of his familial obligations. 

When a woman was left widowed and childless in ancient middle eastern culture, it was seen as her husband's brother's duty to take her as his wife and to bear children with her.  This was for the protection of the widow (A widow with no children was in quite a bad situation back then) and for the carrying on of his brother's name.  The text clearly says that the reason Onan spilled his semen on the ground was to "not give offspring to his brother."  His sin was pride and selfishness; he loathed his duty to provide offspring for his brother but still wanted the pleasure of having sex with his wife.  The sin was not "sex without procreation," but a shirking of his duty to his brother.

That's not wholey correct either since it is still a literal reading of an alegorical text, which is more likely to be about clanship than anything. Er and Onan were both killed by god for being wicked, Onan did not loath his duty of providing an heir to his dead brother, nor was he in it just for the pleasure of screwing the widow Tamar - he was not "happy" because any child born would not be his to claim (ie would not be his heir). The purpose of Levirate union was not for the protection Tamar, but to produce a legal heir to Er's estate. (We have no real way of knowing how bad the situation for a widow was back then, though the scripture does state that Tamar was sent to live with her father so she wasn't cast out or left destitute or any such thing).
 
The text is alegorical (rather than historical) because it is part of the geneology from Adam through to David (via Tamar's first born son with her father-in-law Judah), and hence through to Jesus (if we continue the geneology given in Matthew where both Judah and Tamar are mentioned). That geneology is not a physical family-tree but a means of connecting the tribes of the Israelites (the 12 tribes of Israel from Jacob's 12 sons) in an unbroken history of clan membership/leadership that afrims the position of the Israelites as god's people. [Only young-earth fundamentalists regard this geneology as being an actual continuous father to son hereditary]. It is alegorical because it shows how easily the tribe could have died-out with Judah through the wickedness of Er and Onan - which would have resulted in no King David and hence no Jesus.
 
Which is why marriage was so important in the early Bronze Age as it was the method by which the tribe propagated through the ages in an aural history (much like the geneology in Nordic Sagas for example). Marriage was the union that ensured the surval of the tribe.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site and Forum Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Dolly Parton
Status: Offline
Points: 13342
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guldbamsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 19:21
So all wisdom, theories and knowledge evolve with new discovery - bar religious beliefs? 
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 19:24
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


How is that a distinction?  If you are calling fundamentalism a cancer, then you are calling fundamentalists proponents of a cancer, am I right?  Your whole quote:

If someone believes all people are yucky icky gross poo, that is a harmful belief, is it not?  It will lead them to do harmful things, will it not?  But I do not believe the person is cancer, but their belief is and this belief needs to be opposed as wrongful and harmful.
 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


And I don't need to ask Frank S. anything.  I can read and form my own opinions.  Wink

There's your problem.  You are unwilling to admit that you have a filter and thus cannot understand that all truth goes through your filter.  And you will never understand those you disagree with and why they feel the way they do.  In order to eliminate our filters and see truth in its pure form, we need to engage other people - people who do not have the same filter as we do.

"When Ghandi said that love is the force that can liberate, he meant we have to love our enemy. Even if our enemy is cruel, even if he is crushing us, sowing terror and injustice, we have to love him. This is the message of Jesus. But how can we love our enemy? There is only one way - to understand him. We have to understand why he is that way, how he has come to be like that, why he does not see things the way we do. Understanding a person brings us the power to love and accept him. And the moment we love and accept him, he ceases to be our enemy. To 'love our enemy' is impossible, because the moment we love him, he is no longer our enemy.
To love him, we must practice deep looking in order to understand him.  If we do, we accept him, we love him, and we also accept and love ourselves.  As Buddhists or Christians, we cannot question that understanding is the most important component for transformation.  If we talk to each other, if we organize a dialogue, it is because we believe there is a possibility that we can understand the other person better.  When we understand another person, we understand ourselves better.  And when we understand ourselves better, we understand the other person better, too."
- Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ"

^His insight amazes me - I read his words and go "my gosh, he GETS it!  In a way that most Christians I know DON'T!  Is it possible that we've gotten so used to the filters that we can't even hear the point any more?"
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31721
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 19:35
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


How is that a distinction?  If you are calling fundamentalism a cancer, then you are calling fundamentalists proponents of a cancer, am I right?  Your whole quote:

If someone believes all people are yucky icky gross poo, that is a harmful belief, is it not?  It will lead them to do harmful things, will it not?  But I do not believe the person is cancer, but their belief is and this belief needs to be opposed as wrongful and harmful.


"Yucky icki gross poo" is something a 2 year old would say.  Harmful?  No.  Will it lead them to do harmful things?  Maybe.  Like not sharing toys.  How awful.

You just called a group of people a cancer.  Fine.  But at least have the you-know-wants to stand by it, yeah?  And not hide behind a poor analogy.


Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


And I don't need to ask Frank S. anything.  I can read and form my own opinions.  Wink

There's your problem.  You are unwilling to admit that you have a filter and thus cannot understand that all truth goes through your filter.  And you will never understand those you disagree with and why they feel the way they do.  In order to eliminate our filters and see truth in its pure form, we need to engage other people - people who do not have the same filter as we do.



"All truth."
"Truth in its pure form"

Awesome.  Where can I find this truth that you speak of?  Smile


Because oftentimes, when I've "engag(ed) other people" they have lied to me.  Smile





Edited by Epignosis - June 05 2013 at 19:38
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 19:40
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



Because oftentimes, when I've "engag(ed) other people" they have lied to me.  Smile




Do you know what you're doing?  Here, I'll explain it to you: in the Bible, Jesus and the Holy Spirit both are referred to as an "Advocate".  The actual word used is "parakletos" - it means defense attorney.  Do you know what word is used for "The Satan"?  Accuser.  He's the prosecution lawyer.  When you insist no one is trustworthy and you can't listen to anyone, which one of these two's voices are you listening to more?  Which one do you think you're doing a better job of representing?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 20:35
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



Because oftentimes, when I've "engag(ed) other people" they have lied to me.  Smile




Do you know what you're doing?  Here, I'll explain it to you: in the Bible, Jesus and the Holy Spirit both are referred to as an "Advocate".  The actual word used is "parakletos" - it means defense attorney.  Do you know what word is used for "The Satan"?  Accuser.  He's the prosecution lawyer.  When you insist no one is trustworthy and you can't listen to anyone, which one of these two's voices are you listening to more?  Which one do you think you're doing a better job of representing?

Also you're assuming that the perspective you have is most definitely the right one without examining any other perspectives to find out if they have merit.  The Bible also has something to say about that - it's called pride.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 19202122>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.177 seconds.