MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2004, 03:52 PM   #346
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,268
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Whoa. Go, Larry King! Woo! .

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-25-2004, 05:57 PM   #347
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 05:21 PM
thanks calluna, I had forgotten the part about the cake . He also said something similar when he was on Larry King.
__________________

__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 05:27 PM   #348
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:21 PM
There was an excellent debate on this subject on Real Time with Bill Maher this week. If you get HBO and missed it, it's still re-running this week.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-02-2004, 12:10 PM   #349
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:21 PM
Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'

Schwarzenegger also tells 'Tonight Show' host that he opposes Bush's proposed amendment.

By Joe Mathews, Peter Nicholas and Nancy Vogel
Times Staff Writers

March 2, 2004

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.

In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.

The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.

But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."

After noting that voters had approved Proposition 22 in recent years to limit marriage to a man and a woman, Schwarzenegger indicated he was open at least to an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage.

"If the people change their minds and they want to overrule that, that's fine with me."

The author of Proposition 22, Sen. William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) said he was surprised at Schwarzenegger's comments and disappointed by the governor's overall handling of the gay marriage issue.

If Schwarzenegger announced support for gay marriage legislation, it would pass, Knight added.

"If he says he'll sign it," said Knight, "it'll whistle through there."

Former Gov. Gray Davis, who has socialized with Schwarzenegger in recent weeks, made a surprise appearance on Monday's show, and the two exchanged a few quips.

The former movie star said he had been advising Davis about a possible acting career.

"He's helped me a lot with acting, particularly with my pronunciation," Davis said.-

Schwarzenegger's interview with Leno gave the first indication that the governor is not opposed to gay marriage at a moral level, and that if Californians wanted to change the law, he would not be an obstacle.

When asked, Schwarzenegger has spoken in favor of gay rights since his days as a bodybuilder in the 1970s. He has also expressed support for California's existing domestic partnership law. But as governor he had largely sidestepped questions about the fairness of barring same-sex couples from marrying.

His only previous statement, during a recall campaign interview with talk show host Sean Hannity, appeared to be a malapropism: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."

Asked last week if he had voted for Proposition 22 when it was on the ballot in 2000, the governor said: "I'll be honest with you. I can't remember."

In the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has staked out the position that what is chiefly offensive to him about the marriages in San Francisco is the violation of law.

"He sees this primarily as a matter of the rule of law," his communications director, Rob Stutzman, said in an interview last week.

Asked Monday night about Schwarzenegger's statement on Leno, Stutzman said: "I think the governor's words speak for themselves."

The stance hews closely to the governor's position on most controversial issues. As the self-proclaimed "People's Governor," he has said he wants to follow the wishes of the public as expressed at the ballot box.

But his comments were a notable departure in tone for the governor. Over the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has suggested that San Francisco's granting of licenses was a threat to "civil order." On Feb. 22, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said of the scene in San Francisco, "We see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there are injured or dead people, and we don't want to have that." San Francisco authorities disputed that, saying there have been no riots connected to the issue.

On the same show, he added: "We cannot have, all of a sudden now, mayors go and hand out licenses for various different things. If it is you know, in San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs."

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is no relation to Jay Leno, last month introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage in California. Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.

The assemblyman said he was pleased to hear that the governor opposed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But, he said, he saw Schwarzenegger's statements "let the court decide let the people decide" as contradictory.

"Constitutional issues need to be reviewed and decided by courts and not left to majority opinion polls or cast ballots," said Leno. "Otherwise, few in this country would have any civil rights."

Knight, on the other hand, said he was disappointed in Schwarzenegger's inability to halt the marriages in San Francisco.

"He's not followed up in San Francisco," said Knight. "They're still issuing marriage licenses, they're still breaking the law."

Knight said that if the Legislature passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, he would sue, just as he has sued to try to block a new law sponsored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) that next January will grant more rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.

"Eventually the courts are going to have to take the issue and decide," he said. "Although I don't have much hope in California. The judges so far have not been willing to tackle the issue."

During the "Tonight Show" interview, Jay Leno made an extended speech about what he saw as growing support for gay marriage among the young. "With younger people, it seems to be gathering momentum," Leno said.

"That's good," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's a good debate. It's a very interesting question, and I think the courts should make those decisions. But I think before that happens, we should obey the law."

Schwarzenegger has been one of the most frequent guests in the history of "The Tonight Show," and has used the venue to make major announcements about his career, including his entry into politics on Aug. 6 of last year.

But the governor did not appear to be attempting to make news on gay marriage. During the same interview, the governor joked he was fighting with his Hollywood agents because they wanted 10% of the state budget. Schwarzenegger seemed more intent on campaigning for two ballot measures to eliminate budget deficits Propositions 57 and 58 which appear on today's statewide ballot.

Schwarzenegger initially glared at Jay Leno when he raised the issue of gay marriage, but the ensuing discussion was lighthearted.

After Jay Leno introduced the subject by asking, "This gay marriage thing, what's your position on it, how do you deal with it?"

Schwarzenegger paused pregnantly and asked, "Are you trying to ask me something?"

"No, I'm not trying to ask you something," Leno replied.

"C'mon, admit it," the governor said. "All right, I admit," Leno said. "I'm in love with you."
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 03-02-2004, 01:08 PM   #350
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:21 AM
different sex marriage

same sex marriage

no marriage

AcrobatMan
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 03-02-2004, 01:12 PM   #351
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:21 AM
oops double post ..deleted
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:46 PM   #352
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:21 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/op...b77ea73311e7da
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:11 PM   #353
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword


I've never seen how the "disregard the OT" argument works.

1) In teh Gospels Jesus is called teh end/fulfillmentof the law (the word in Greek means both), but even end can mean completion as in the Law accomplishes no salvation without Christ as it's only the first half of the equation. This is basically Paul's argument. The Lwa brings knowledge of sin thus the Law still has a purpose, for one cannot accpet a Savior if you do not believe you need to be saved. As a final note Paul remained a Jew to his death. He kept the full extent of the Law (as he had reinterpreted it in the new context of Christ) even practicing sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, and in all things he stated that Jews should continue to keep the Law as Christ believers.

2) The NT quotes the OT at length. There are both explict (as in direct) and implicit (along the lines of paraphrasing or subtle referencing) quotations of OT texts throughout the NT. Matthew is full of them, Jesus in all gospels is an authority on the Hebrew Bible and quotes heavily from it. Much of Jesus says can be found in the OT. A biblical scholar with the proper know how could probably turn up thousands of OT references in the NT. Paul again quotes heavily from the OT and the book of Revelation only becomes even remotely intelligible when you read it a long side the OT book of Daniel, the source of the imagery the writer uses to describe his vision. You cannot get the full significance of the NT without reading the OT.

3) The OT has been part of the Christian cannon fromt eh very beginning. Before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters and the writings of others were collected teh only texts the first belivers had were the Hebrew Bible. The first belivers the people who actually knew Jesus and/or the apostles knew the Hebrew Bible and read it.

There are more things I could say but to me to take the NT without the OT is absurd even in a strictly scholarly sense.
Sorry, my response is a bit late, but....

What I meant was that the NT is, as far as I'm concerned, the Law regarding religious issues. The NT disregards a lot of the OT. Anything in the OT that is important to how I as a Christian should live is also present, whether directly or implied, in the NT. For example, the OT says "thou shalt not kill". The NT doesn't throw that out and say we CAN kill, but it says we should "love thy neighbor as thyself" which obviously includes NOT killing people. So I don't mean to say by voiding the rules of the OT I CAN kill and steal and worship idols, but I don't NEED those rules anymore b/c if I am srtiving to live like Jesus, that implies that I'm not killing, stealing, etc. Also, the OT has so many specifics that no longer are relevent. Like, certain meat being unclean - I know there's one part in the NT where Jesus tells this guy who's supposed to dine at a pagan's house that he can eat the meat that is served.

The OT is important for the history of Christianity and theology, but if hypothetically there was no longer an OT, I don't believe the rules for living a Christian life would change. Everything that's necessary for salvation is in the NT.

Sorry, that had nothing to do with gay marriage...
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 06:27 PM   #354
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
The OT is important for the history of Christianity and theology, but if hypothetically there was no longer an OT, I don't believe the rules for living a Christian life would change. Everything that's necessary for salvation is in the NT.
But, as you point out, to live by NT commands, we look to the OT to give it meaning. Salvation does not come by the Law (i.e., works), but "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly." 1 Tim 1:8
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 11:24 PM   #355
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Why is that people only want to pick and choose the Old Testament laws? If you're going to use these laws in order to argue against gay marriage look at the rest and see how many you follow, or even how many make sence these days.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:11 AM   #356
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 08:21 PM
And yet another state jumps on the bandwagon...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/0...age/index.html
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:20 AM   #357
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
And yet another state jumps on the bandwagon...

That's great.

The cat's out of the bag here, kids. And it ain't going back in.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:24 AM   #358
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,268
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
That's great.

The cat's out of the bag here, kids. And it ain't going back in.
Indeed. .

It's about time.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-04-2004, 12:30 AM   #359
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Why is that people only want to pick and choose the Old Testament laws? If you're going to use these laws in order to argue against gay marriage look at the rest and see how many you follow, or even how many make sence these days.
Exactly, the OT laws are worthless in the sense that they are not the laws that govern a pious Christian lifestyle. Sure, they're important for theological and historical reasons and as the origins for NT interpretations, but other than that, they're just old laws that we no longer need.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-04-2004, 04:50 AM   #360
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 01:21 AM
They still serve an important function as Paul lays out. Through the Law (of Moses) comes the knowledge of sin. No one who diesn't belive they are a sinner can turn to a Savior. And that is the situation amongst a lot of society today. They don't want to be saved because they don't think they need saving. Therefore the Law's purpose is still very valid. We as Gentile belivers are not required to keep the Law but we still need to be aware of it to serve as guide posts for our behavior. Though its funny how some of teh explicit NT laws get ignored, like the whole no fornication thing. Just try convincing people that's a sin these days.

One of the big problems with applying the OT and NT Laws and guidelines on the matter of homosexual intercourse is that both sets of texts assume everyone is heterosexual by default. However as we know modern science has made it clear that homosexuality is a sexual identity that in nearly all cases results from a mixture of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors (anyone who trys to say it's been proven to be purely genetic in all cases or in any cases is misinformed as the jury is still out and a lot more reseach needs to be done). In any case for the vast majority of homosexuals in the moderns sense, it is not a conscious choice. Now whether one regards homosexuality as a natural state, a genetic disorder or a psychological disorder is a matter of opinion (on the last count we have the lines blurred a bit now with the psychologist who lead the charge to have homosexuality removed as a pyschological disorder saying that unwanted homosexual feelings can be reverse). With so much data floating around and so many studies I find it hard to take definite opinion. However as it is clear that homsexuals are functional individuals (though there are some indications of increased mental stress in some studies, the higher rate of depression and suicide is often referred to) there is no reason for them to be denied rights no matter what your take on the science is. Whether or not you consider the condition to be reversable or unhealthy spiritually or metally is a matter beyond the realm of law.

As a moderate conservative on this issue I tend to fall on the side of harmful to the individual but not debilitating, but not harmful to society as a whole as it is not a matter of conscious decision that's gonna catch on like a plague which the "gay menace" crowd seem to think. Nor do I think gays are going to hell for one sin which they have little to no control over, (save in the as yet undecied possibility that homosexuality may may be reversible in at least a certain percentage of individuals should they desire it - and even then I don't think anyone is going to say such a changeover would be easy). And that said I do think homosexual intercourse is a sin and it is explicitly so for "straight" people who have no cause to do so, that much is clear in scripture. Of course then there's the problem of there being a sexual continuum due to the imperfect nature of human genetics as well as a gender continuum. This does not make any of these people of less value or more sinners than other people but it does once again remind us of a situation where one must make the choice to live as best as they can rather than meeting an ideal which for a number of people is out of reach entirely. Such is the reality of sin, nothing can be perfect, yet we should still endeavor to bring ourselves into as right a relationship with God as possible. And yes in my opinion that does mean that people who are irreversibly homosexual can be in a solid relationship with God, becuase then they would simply not be capable of living out one small section of the Law. One can't be held culpable for things that can't be controlled (and if one is not capable of being celebate I don't advocate it, as the harm in that course is made quite clear in all the problems facing the Catholic clergy right now).
__________________

__________________
Blacksword is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com