Three lawsuits filed against Prop 8 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-gay-marriage-ban_N.htm)

Good to know that they'll be taking it back to the courts and away from the people to decide what rights homosexuals should have. This proposition was a disgusting abuse of democracy.

Wow, even though you agree with us, you still feel like arguing bible meanings with us.

I'll repeat:
I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it. Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

I'm a Christian - and a better one than you, to be honest. Not really an insult, just an understanding that God isn't fond of atheists.

As for what I comprehend about the bible, the verses I wrote were to make a point. The fact that you went ahead and insulted me for no apparent reason, and called me ignorant even though you actually have no real clue as to what I know about Bible verses is kind of disappointing. And then, to top it off by insinuating that you do understand the native greek and hebrew is so arrogant that I wish they had a stronger word for it.

I concede then, you are correct, I am incorrect. ;)

Three lawsuits filed against Prop 8 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-gay-marriage-ban_N.htm)

Good to know that they'll be taking it back to the courts and away from the people to decide what rights homosexuals should have. This proposition was a disgusting abuse of democracy.


Very nice :)

I must say, I was extremely disappointed when I got to school today and everyone was cheering about Prop 8. Even my teachers, the people who have told me my whole life that it is wrong to hate or discriminate, were happy with the passing. I was a tad put off by this.

I honestly can't understand why we find it morally acceptable to hate someone for being homosexual, lesbian, or anything in between, yet we find it unacceptable to hate a person of different ethnicity or anything else of that matter. I see hardly a difference between two, in my opinion.

I agree zelda that there is no difference between ethnicity or sexual orientation as far as discrimination goes. I admit I can be a coward when it comes to discussing politics of a sensitive nature with my family but I made a promise to myself and I kept it. This election I voted no on Prop 8.

I believe jonathan said it best in his siggie bout love from Corinthians. However there are the two greatest rules within the Bible that Jesus tells the people. The first was to love the Lord your God. The second was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then it goes on to say that those are the greatest of commandments or something like that. I take those to heart and try to live my life by them.

I have had time to think about homosexuality. I believe that everythign exists for a reason. If God says that homosexulaity is so bad then why does it exist. Believe it or not it did exist in biblical times. Sodom ring a bell? So if it exists there must be a reason for it. We may not know all the whys but it is there so why should it be treated differently than others?

I think part of the problem with the issue of Prop 8 is the fact that there were a lot of misnomers used to promote for it. That busines with education in schools, totally irrelevant since the proposition mentions nothing about it and California law guarantees parents have a right to hear what they want them to hear regarding sex ed etc. Frankly I am all for a re-open of prop 8 or shooting it down from a Constitutional standpoint.

Murder also exists. So does Rape, Pedophilia, and a host of other stuff. Stuff can't be okay just because it exists.

Also, Sodom got nuked.

I don't know the whole deal regarding this, but I have a question - is it going to hurt anyone by allowing homosexuals to 'marry/partner/bond'?

I don't know the whole deal regarding thisit amended the california constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Something True_Avery pointed out to me awhile back was that civil unions apparently don't have the same rights as marriage in CA. I thought they were pretty much the same. I think if they're going to amend the constitution to define marriage but also have civil unions, then I think civil unions should have the same rights as marriage.

Sounds fair enough to me.

According to my religion, homosexuality is a sin, and I do not want people to sin, so I do not agree with homosexuality.
According to your religion, you also can't eat pork, cut your hair, shave your face, nor let a Jew walk past you without murdering him for not accepting Jesus as his Messiah. Much less an agnostic, or heaven forbid an atheist. I look forward to seeing you come to my door with a hatchet sometime this weekend. :dozey:

You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic.
It establishes the fact that you yourself are doing exactly what Corinthian accused EW of (which, ironically enough, he also appears to be guilty of): cherry-picking the bits of the Bible you agree with, and ignoring the bits that you don't want to face, such as, let's say, the rest of the book of Leviticus.

I'll grant you one point: I don't agree with homosexuality either. I don't understand how one man can fall in love with another man, nor a woman with another woman. I just simply don't get it, and I seriously doubt I ever really will. However, I also don't get how people can eat brocolli, or find Jerry Sinfeld even remotely funny. That doesn't give me the right to tell you you're not allowed to ruin perfectly good cheese by coating it over a plate of brocolli, or buy the 4th season of Seinfeld on DVD. I don't get it, and I'd never do it myself, but I can't stop you from doing it.

The passage in the Bible proclaiming that no man shall lie with another man, nor a woman with another woman, is in the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus). The Old Testament is full of teachings that are not supported today by a single Christian. That's an indisputable fact. Face it: the Old Testament was a book written for a much older time when the world was a vastly different place than it is now. It simply doesn't apply to life in the 21st Century, much less the future.

So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?
In my mind, the teachings of Christ should take precedence in the Christian faith over the teachings of the Old Testament, and Christ is not recorded saying anything on the matter. If you're going to preach the out-dated teachings of the Old Testament, preach them all, please. Doing otherwise is simply hypocritical.

Besides, it is the mark of an intelligent Christian when one does not simply take everything the book says at face value, but questions it, and form their own beliefs and interpretations of the words. It's called Interperative Christianity, and it's a beautiful thing. Some people call it "reasoning", or even "intelligence".

But no, I'm sure that Matthew got it wrong. He must have forgotten to write down Jesus' entire sermon that day. After reading your posts, I'm now positive that Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged - except for those damned gays, of course." :rolleyes:

Corinthians and Romans are not in the Old Testament.

Also, I don't see how being opposed to sin is somehow being Anti-Christian.

It establishes the fact that you yourself are doing exactly what Corinthian accused EW of (which, ironically enough, he also appears to be guilty of): cherry-picking the bits of the Bible you agree with, and ignoring the bits that you don't want to face, such as, let's say, the rest of the book of Leviticus.

Sorry, let me clarify. In case anyone is referring to my passages on Leviticus, they were to make a point.

If you are referring to my passage in Matthew, I invite you to take a broader view. I didn't say: "Hey, guys, judging is in the bible, let's make a law forbidding it!"

Even if you don't believe in "Judge, lest you be judged," which is fine, it still doesn't address my points about removing others' rights when they cause you no harm.

From now on, I'll just say 'don't judge people,' since it's something I personally live by. That way I don't have to be called a cherry-picker for putting Jesus-quotations around it.

FWIW, I tend to take everything in the bible as interpretive.

_EW_

I've always felt that the government should not be dealing with Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should have the same rights as marriage currently does. Whether someone is married or not should be up to the church performing the ceremony. All marriages should be just another form of civil union.

According to your religion, you also can't eat pork, cut your hair, shave your face, nor let a Jew walk past you without murdering him for not accepting Jesus as his Messiah. Much less an agnostic, or heaven forbid an atheist. I look forward to seeing you come to my door with a hatchet sometime this weekend. :dozey:
I am not perfect. I am sure that you were being sarcastic with that statement as well. I do not murder people for not agreeing with my religion. I am not gonna be killing anyone. ;)

I'll grant you one point: I don't agree with homosexuality either. I don't understand how one man can fall in love with another man, nor a woman with another woman.
That is also one of the reasons that I don't agree with homosexuality. ;)

In my mind, the teachings of Christ should take precedence in the Christian faith over the teachings of the Old Testament, and Christ is not recorded saying anything on the matter. If you're going to preach the out-dated teachings of the Old Testament, preach them all, please. Doing otherwise is simply hypocritical.
As Corinthian pointed out Corinthians and Romans are in the New Testament.
Besides, it is the mark of an intelligent Christian when one does not simply take everything the book says at face value, but questions it, and form their own beliefs and interpretations of the words. It's called Interperative Christianity, and it's a beautiful thing. Some people call it "reasoning", or even "intelligence".
Many Christians are like that.

That is also one of the reasons that I don't agree with homosexuality. ;)

I don't understand how Quantum Field Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory) works either but I don't disagree with it just based on my lack of comprehension, doubting Thomas. (yes, the Thomas part was a joke.)

_EW_

I have to admit that I'm a little blown away by the fact that all the same-sex marriage bans did so resoundingly well.

Apparently we're only capable of certain amount of acceptance at any one time and we used it all to elect a black man President this go-round. The good news is that I think these will all be ruled unconstitutional via judicial review.

Apparently we're only capable of certain amount of acceptance at any one time and we used it all to elect a black man President this go-round. I found it depressing that 70% of African-Americans supported Proposition 8.

Let me be frank, I'm REALLY glad that Prop 8 passed. Not only is it against my religion and its wrong, but think, if everyone was a homosexual, then in maybe, oh, one generation, everyone would be dead. There would be no offspring of a same -sex generation. Humans are not meant to be like that, it isn't right at all anatomically and in every other way.

I side with Rev7 and the others on many of their beliefs.

And to say something on earlier posts, God will always love everyone, God does not HATE anyone on Earth he hates sin, not the sinners.

Whether people think it's right or wrong is not the point.

The point is whether it's right or wrong to impose your belief system on another.

True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing. In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

Whether people think it's right or wrong is not the point.

The point is whether it's right or wrong to impose your belief system on another.

Welllll that is kind of the point. People in the minority are trying to impose ther beliefs onto a society that does not agree with it. Either way it goes, you end up forcing beliefs on a group that does not want it.

While I tend to be in favor of same sex couples having all the rights and privelages of male-female couples, the reality is that the majority find it to be a negative thing. It's going against biology and against the majority of religious views. Many are afraid of normalizing the abnormal.

True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing. In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

And where do you draw the line between what is imposing your own will on others and "things that are not meant to be"?

That's a very good question, everyones own opinion would bring up a different line of no crossing. That's just the problem about pretty much everything, the lines between the "Right" and the "Wrong" are often blurred by people's own opinions and beliefs, the idea, I guess is to keep your faith in your own belief. Now, "The Things that are not meant to be," those things are things that can be dangerous to your own self . But I guess the line would probably be somewhere between "not allowing it" and "being brutal about not allowing it." There must be some line in between good and bad in the world's society . There's always going to be a disagreement when a choice is made, that's gaurunteed.

I found it depressing that 70% of African-Americans supported Proposition 8. Apparently you need to listen to more hip-hop.

Being a b***h-a** n***a is a no-no.

Let me be frank, I'm REALLY glad that Prop 8 passed. Not only is it against my religion and its wrong, but think, if everyone was a homosexual, then in maybe, oh, one generation, everyone would be dead. How do we go from "gay marriage ok: yes, no, maybe" to "everyone would die if everyone was a homosexual"?

There would be no offspring of a same -sex generation. Humans are not meant to be like that, it isn't right at all anatomically and in every other way. Except we find homosexuality lots of other places in the animal world. Nevermind the fact that homosexuality can be healthy, as fewer males competing for females can actually help propagate a species (females mating with multiple males = increased genetic diversity, etc).

And to say something on earlier posts, God will always love everyone, God does not HATE anyone on Earth he hates sin, not the sinners.Yet god created us, sin, and the ability for us to sin. If you believe that in predestination, then you also believe that god intentionally made some of us to be more sinful than others. Kinda hurts the whole "god loves you" thing.

Welllll that is kind of the point. People in the minority are trying to impose ther beliefs onto a society that does not agree with it. Nnnnot really. Allowing gay marriage does not force heterosexuals to be gay, or partake in gay marriage. In fact, allowing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the lives of heterosexuals. None. Zero. Which is why it should be such a non-issue, but heterosexuals feel like it is necessary to impose their beliefs onto others.

Achilles, I was simply voicing my belief. I'm standing by it, but as I said earlier there will always be someone who disagrees.

Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not.

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not. Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop. :)

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.This would seem to assume that all reasons are equally valid.

If that's the case, then the people that think that they have good reasons for abusing children are on equal footing with those that think they have good reasons for opposing it. Therefore, since both sets of reason are equal, passing laws that prevent child abuse would be unfairly oppressive, no?

I arbitrarily used "child abuse" here. Feel free to replace it with any other topic of your choosing.

Shall we abandon the "all reasons are equal" premise now or would you like to attempt to argue it some more?

Either we have good reasons for preventing others from having equal rights or we do not. Frankly, I find the casualness with which you dismiss the rights of others more than a little offensive.

You know, I don't really like arguing but the point of what I said was not that all beliefs are valid in their reasons. But that would fall under your opinion onto which reasons are more or less valid. And I am not tossing away the "rights" of others. I meant no offense on that . I believe that these things we argue about are wrong, you have a different opinion and we're both trying to make the other see our reasons that both are right. I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier. I side with many others on their choices .

Edit:
Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma:

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop. :)

There's good Hip-Hop and the not-so-good Hip-Hop. Same here. Cool Saying, though.

If you need to add to a previous post, please use the you may: edit,... link in the lower right hand side of your post. Please don't double post. --Jae

Sometimes doing what you think is best for someone is the worst thing you could do for them, as is the case of Prop 8, IMHO.

I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier.No, you shared your beliefs. I pointed out that we either have good reasons for our beliefs or we do not.

Some people are permitted the right to marry. Some people are not. Do we have a good reason for this distinction?

Forget for a moment that the distinction is homosexual vs. heterosexual. Imagine that it is blond vs brunette, right-handed vs left-handed, near-sighted vs far-sighted or whatever. Are you still able to maintain the argument that some people should not be allowed to marry while others can (i.e. blond people can get married but people with brown hair cannot)?

Do you have a good reason for maintaining the argument? Is there a moral (not religious) basis for your argument?

If the answer is no, then you really should reconsider your stance on the issue.

Nnnnot really. Allowing gay marriage does not force heterosexuals to be gay, or partake in gay marriage. In fact, allowing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the lives of heterosexuals. None. Zero. Which is why it should be such a non-issue, but heterosexuals feel like it is necessary to impose their beliefs onto others.

Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

Let me point something out to you then:


True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing.

So are you trying to maintain the argument that Prop 8 is not an imposition on the homosexuality population? It's not an imposition to keep them from having the same protections and rights granted to them as a married couple?

Under your defintion, now, "imposing is forcing." Aren't you trying to force them to not marry, using this law? (Let me make sure you get this one - the answer is that's exactly what you're doing.)

In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

Why is the marrying of homosexuals not meant to be? Who says you get to make that call?
Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.

_EW_


tags for this thread:
bigotry, civil rights, drama, flaming, gay marriage, gay marriage rights, idiotic spam, moderator frustration, proposition 8, slaves

The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

My state passed what is in essence a discriminatory bill... very depressing indeed. :( Way to go California!!! :golfclap:

Also there is something people are missing here, marriage is not merely a religious ceremony bonding people together by vows... it is also a legal status that carries with it certain rights to your chosen spouse. That is what Homosexuals want here, and why do they have to even ask for it anyway?

Why can't a Homosexual you don't know, and who cares not for the bible or its 'teachings', have to do things "the Bible way or the highway" here, that is what confuses me when people bring their religion in on what is in essence not their religions concern.

It is about attaining the 'legal' status of marriage nothing more. Why is that so scary to people?

Why should two people in love (regardless of gender) and having been together for decades not all have the same rights? Can anyone answer this simple question without using the bible or their religious beliefs to back their statements up?

I honestly don't believe so, people are so entrenched in their own beliefs that they no longer see beyond them at all... and that frightens me to no end.

Anyway that is my :twocents: I'm out.

The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

The bible does what? Does not dictate morality?

_EW_

No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.
They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them. Look, I'm not arguing for the "Sanctity of Marriage" folks. In fact I find the whole thing pretty well disturbing that our society hasn't progressed enough to be tolerant of others' sexuality. It is rather interesting that you automatically jump on ME as being opposed to gay marriage. I am not in the least. You can read through my posts in this very thread to see that I am not. We had prop 102 that I voted against here in AZ. It passed. I'm explaining that either way it is imposing beliefs on another group. You just feel that your beliefs are not immoral. They believe that allowing gay marriage is immoral. Either way you are stepping on someone's morals. WE(as in you and I, just so you understand I am not against your position) just happen to believe that it is immoral to treat one group differently than another group.

Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?

It dictates morality that is inconsistently followed today by Christians. They cherry-pick what to follow and what not to follow as is convenient for them.

They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them.

See: blacks and the civil rights movement.

Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?
First of all, I like it how you didn't answer my question. It leads me to wonder if you ever answer questions when they're directly asked of you, since I recall you doing it last night as well.

As per your comment: I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like an illiterate child. I'm quite aware of what the bible says, thank you very much. I don't enjoy insults at 430 am.

_EW_

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ.
Says who? Hell, if we ain't followin' the OT laws, why bother putting them there.

Says the Bible. Romans 10:44 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:2223 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christb that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2:15 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

You may want to sit down.

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

Have you noticed the author of Romans and Corinthians?

It was the apostle Paul. I hope you're not implying that Paul was the end-all-be-all authority on homosexuality?

I'm pretty sure he was human.

_EW_

Oh, good. Now it's the "Paul was a False Apostle" argument.

I take it you do not believe the Bible is actually Divinely Inspired?

Says the Bible.
The New Testament also says it's a-ok to have slaves, yet modern society has thankfully come to its senses over that pile of crap.

No, it doesn't. Why is it a problem that the Bible does not condemn slavery?

Because then you can't use it as justification for your prejudice against homosexuality. Having slaves is inhumane and immoral. The Bible says it's okay to have slaves. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.