buy antibiotics without prescription
Guild of Greeters   Suitable for Every Age   

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Forum Rules Lava Pit Rules
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Same-sex Marriage
Tomala
post Jul 18 2012, 02:05 AM
Post #16


Uru Guru
Group Icon

Group: Explorer
Posts: 547
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Not here.
Member No.: 3,239



QUOTE (Kaym @ Jun 30 2012, 12:04 PM) *
<br />This is amazing to me that so many people could be so wrong. Marriage MEANS a union between a man and a woman. For generations and generation this has been the best situation to raise children. If you want to leave sex out of it, you can live together and have every freedom that other people in this country have. But same sex is perverted and shouldn't happen. Now, do I have the nerve to post this. Yes, I do, you stated your opinion and this is mine.<br />


Do I hear someone volunteering to keep watch on every single bedroom in the US? biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Tomala: Jul 18 2012, 02:06 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shana
post Jul 18 2012, 08:50 AM
Post #17


Uru Fan
Group Icon

Group: Explorer
Posts: 70
Joined: 15-April 07
From: Bryan, Texas
Member No.: 5,244



If I might interject a bit of humor...

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Kinky Friedman


--------------------
"Ever since he got that backpack, he thinks he's Super Mario." - Arwen Gemstone 7/28/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lisilee
post Dec 22 2012, 12:43 PM
Post #18


Uru Visitor
Group Icon

Group: Explorer
Posts: 47
Joined: 18-January 08
From: wondering through the ages!
Member No.: 5,910



QUOTE (d'rbeh @ Jul 18 2012, 03:35 AM) *
it always kind of fascinated me why marriage between people of the same sex should bother anyone else. i mean - why? are they forcing you to attend their marriage? are they invading and eliminating your personal freedoms?

no.

so, the issue of whether or not people of the same sex should not matter to anyone who is not involved. if it does matter, then like kon'dor said, there has been plenty of indoctrinating going on - pushing people to believe a certain way, all in the guise of "morality".

as for separation of church and state, i believe it should be completely separated. unless of course, each township, each local government, etc. would be perfectly fine with allowing representations of each and EVERY religion to be displayed publicly on public grounds. for example, if the christians are able to set up a nativity set, why not allow the wiccans or other religions to erect items/altars, etc. of things that are important in their religion? fair is fair.


I think instead of addressing the issue of wheather same sex marriage is destroying families, I really think that the issue of divorce and remarriage should be addressed. and most of professing christianity will not approch it. i believe divorce destroys more families than any gay couples can do......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ken Telinome
post Jan 2 2013, 02:36 AM
Post #19


Uru Guru
Group Icon

Group: Greeter (Greeter)
Posts: 1,974
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Three Lakes, WI, USA
Member No.: 3,259



It has been the case throughout history that governments have and should legislate what constitutes a marriage, because a marriage is not just about sex and procreation. Technically, marriage is and always has been a contract between persons, which is why a divorce is so tedious--it is a breaking of a contract, and the parties need to be compensated for the broken contract.

I am a highly religious man and as many of you know have been studying for ordained ministry (Lutheran tradition) for almost four years now. The idea that marriage between one man and one woman as the natural order, or even Biblical marriage, is false. From ancient times up until only less than a hundred years ago, marriage was a property contract in which a male took ownership of one or more females as his property. It was a monetary contract with terms and conditions. The purpose was to make sure that the human race continued, so a man being married to multiple women was not only acceptable, for much of history, it was the norm (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible assumes this arrangement to be the norm and is only concerned with who the Israelites marry, not how many they marry). Later, Judaism adopted the one man-one woman stance on marriage, but still treated marriage as a property law.

We have come a long, long way from Biblical marriage. Except where it is necessary for survival, polygamy is generally frowned upon. In most places, marriage, while still a property contract, no longer considers the woman to be part of the property, but an equal property-holder. We've emphasized the emotional, intimate nature of nature (perhaps too much), attempting to foster the image of marriage as an image of love, equality.

That marriage has always been a religious as well as a civil contract is a consequence of the nature of society and culture. The distinction between "religious life" and "secular life" is fairly recent. Before about the Enlightenment, there were both the same thing--"life".

Now, however, there is a general separation of the two in many places. Here, I refer back to my earlier statement. Marriage, while blessed by the religious side of life, has always been a civil contract as well. It offers more than acceptance for the marriage, but in the United States of America, for example, there are 1138 federal provisions covering rights, benefits, and priveleges that stipulate marriage as a factor. These are rights, benefits, and priveleges that are generally not available in any other way. It is the responsibility of the government, as the structure maintaining and regulating society, to ensure that these rights are equally available to all.

I am familiar with the Biblical arguments against homosexual behavior, and there can be no denying that the Biblical authors and editors considered homosexuality to be a threat to their society--and at that time, it can be argued that it was. The argument that I hear most often is that if the Bible says it, then it must be followed to the letter. Yet not a single Christian does this, and no honest Christian claims to. To insist that the few references to homosexuality must be adhered to unconditionally while other commands (Jesus the Christ forbidding divorce, for example) are able to be ignored defeats the argument immediately. Another argument must be found.

For my part, I try never to take a single verse out of the Bible and treat it like the whole. The Bible is a collection of stories, and all stories need to be taken as a whole before they are broken apart. The God I worship is many things, but is above all a God who tries in every way to have a meaningful, fulfilling relationship with God's children, whether they be chosen, adopted, or estranged. And contrary to popular belief, God changes God's mind on many occasions, and I am open to the possibility that in this new age with new challenges, it is time for a change.

I am 100% for same-sex civil unions that bestow every single benefit that marriage provides because of the civil obligations I mentioned above. I am probably about 90% for religious same-sex marriage in my own tradition, and that 10% is really a semantic issue.


--------------------

Avatar: Ken Telinome | KI: 00329185 | Blog: Living an Ecumenical Life
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th August 2017 - 01:55 AM