MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 8 - 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 02-07-2004, 04:20 PM   #106
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Not really. My question was really about the word "marriage." How did it become a relgious concept, when courthouse marriages have been around for a while.


I consider myself married in every sense. I think the idea of "civil unions" is meant to put those who aren't bound by narrow ideas of religion into a different status. I also didn't say that we weren't married with religion in mind.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 04:25 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 01:41 AM
I think there are two different issues being discussed here.

Firstly, human rights abuse. I agree completely the abuse of human rights is wrong and I would be down at the protest rally with you on this one. I also believe that human rights abuses are not resticted to the unions being discussed in this forum. There is spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships (married or otherwise), as well as in relationships involving gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people. ie all forms of relationships.

Bit about me: I worked fulltime for 4 and a half years at Oxfam (here in Perth), volunteered in the evenings at Amnesty, and did the occasional Greenpeace protest on the weekend. I dedicated most of my twenties to what I considered to be 'doing my bit' to contribute to the planet. So I agree with you 100% - human rights abuses are completely wrong.

What I was typing about in this thread is the other side of the coin, the positive side, when things go right. Just as hetrosexual relationships can be respectiful and loving, so can multipartnered and GLBTI relationships. I have been happily in a loving supporting relationship for the past 10 years and I wish the same happiness on everyone - whereever you may find it.

Peace.
__________________

__________________
beli is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 05:12 PM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Maybe this is what upsets straight conservatives so much. That marriage will truly become a partnership of equals; men will finally lose the last remnants of their hegemony. There is no obedience in a homosexual marriage, because there's no true husband to be obeyed and wife to be obedient. There are only equals.

Maybe I'm onto something here.
Then tell my why it is a group of women marching on the statehouse in Boston tomorrow....if it is a group of "conservative men" worried about obeying and being obedient.

I am sorry, but any of my friends who happen to fall into the "conservative " label and are married have partnerships with their wives.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 05:34 PM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.
I don't want to answer on behalf of Dreadsox here.

You can either try and define sin yourself and let that definition change with the ebb and flow of life, or you can look to a source

There are many things God calls sin that we, as humans, feel are okay for our lives. We may not get hurt or hurt another by committing these sins, but we cannot have the best life God wants for us (despite our better judgment).

It is human nature to self-justify our behavior. I see it in children every day, and I know I am just as susceptible. We want to do what is right in our own eyes.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 06:03 PM   #110
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: 19,255
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Thanks for the explanation, nbcrusader. I guess I'm still just curious, though-if what we do doesn't hurt anybody else, why does God still have a problem with it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Why am I getting hit with this...??? There were others in the thread that said this....They said that "acting" on sexual urges was wrong...
I know that. I didn't mean it to sound like an attack solely on you-I didn't even mean it as an attack to begin with. I just didn't think right then about who all else had said that whole "sin is sin" bit, so I just picked your post's mention of it to get the questions going. I did remember others mentioning that acting on the urges was wrong, though, and so they were welcome to answer those questions if they wished.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
For the sake of argument...my point was a marriage license is NOT going to prevent the behavior.

There are many here in this forum that believe through biblical teachings it is SIN. Rather than argue if it is or isn't I am trying to say, how does a marriage license change it?
Okay, I see what you're getting at. I honestly don't know how it would change that. People who think it's a sin now will still think so if the marriage was deemed legal, true. But at least the homosexuals would finally have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 06:10 PM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:41 PM
And we have just as much of a tendency to stick with tradition, no matter what, even if that tradition is wrong. The Pharisees are a classic example of Biblical fundamentalists, and look where they ended up with the first coming of Christ?

The Bible does not mention homosexuality. Period. The term originated out of Germany in 1874, and sufficiently shocked people. For that reason alone, supposed condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are incorrect. Prior to 1874, homosexual acts were viewed within three mindsets: acts performed by rebellious heterosexuals under the influence of "evil," acts performed to humiliate rivals, and acts performed in idolatry. In all three cases, the acts were performed by heterosexuals.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the oft-mentioned anti-gay passages, was not even interpreted that way until the rise of an apocryphal text from c. 200 B.C. called "The Book of Jubilees." This book was known amongst the people of the day, and was found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. All Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah are in the context of inhospitality towards strangers.

All mentions of supposed "homosexuals" in the Bible are really references to male temple prostitutes. In most "pagan" religions of the day, it was believed that sex brought one closer to the gods, and, thus, followers of these religions would engage in mass bisexual orgies in temples. The fact that people translate the "male temple prostitutes" as being homosexual is due to prejudice. A woman is not seen as being a patron to a prostitute, so it is thus inferred that men must be the patrons; thus declaring the prostitutes as "homosexual." That, however, is incorrect. The prostitutes were bisexual, and, thus, slept with men and women. Thus, the outrage was against this practice that we have no name for, as the temple prostitutes have not existed for nearly 2000 years, not "homosexuality" as discovered in 1874.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 06:23 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Thanks for the explanation, nbcrusader. I guess I'm still just curious, though-if what we do doesn't hurt anybody else, why does God still have a problem with it?
I guess if I am going to compare my wisdom with God's Wisdom, I will go with God.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 07:32 PM   #113
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Because many women find comfort in obedience and the status quo. You'll find women who opposed sufferage for women, too.

And I said straight conservatives; I didn't specify men.

I'm glad your friends have equal partnerships. I wonder if we'd have the same definition of that?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 07:36 PM   #114
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:41 AM
But, to pose a different question, if God views homosexuality as a sin, what does that have to do with the right of homosexuals to marry in a democracy where church and state are Constitutionally separated?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 07:37 PM   #115
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

There's some people I know who have no intention of ever having children. Would their marriages, when the time comes, be considered invalid then, too?

Like me?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 07:42 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Not really. My question was really about the word "marriage." How did it become a relgious concept, when courthouse marriages have been around for a while.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. For myself and my family and the community in which I was raised, "marriage" always referred to the religious union. If you were talking about a civil marriage, you'd specify so. Marriage has been discussed in the context of religion for over a thousand years. Just this week for a class I had to read a document from 1439 that outlines the purpose of marriage.

I guess your statement sort of proves my point: that there are definitly two types of marriage and it's easy to get people's beliefs confused if it's not specified which type of marriage they're referring to.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 08:09 PM   #117
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
If you were talking about a civil marriage, you'd specify so. ....

I guess your statement sort of proves my point: that there are definitly two types of marriage and it's easy to get people's beliefs confused if it's not specified which type of marriage they're referring to.
This answers it. There are two kinds of marriage: religious and civil, and they're both labled marriage, which gives them equal weight.

So "civil unions" are not civil marriages. Which relegates homosexual unions to the second-class pile. Which is discrimination. Which is wrong.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 10:10 PM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Because many women find comfort in obedience and the status quo. You'll find women who opposed sufferage for women, too.

And I said straight conservatives; I didn't specify men.

I'm glad your friends have equal partnerships. I wonder if we'd have the same definition of that?
You are making many assumptions about the people who are marching tomorrow.

I don't know, what do you think? Is your definition superior to theirs? Is their definition superior to yours? Or is it more important that people find happiness for themselves in their relationships, rather than let anyone decide what is or is not a partnership for them.

The thrust of your comments however appeared to be an attack on straoght males.....having reread it again.....I still feel that way. If I am wrong...my apologies for misunderstanding.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 10:37 PM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha

So "civil unions" are not civil marriages. Which relegates homosexual unions to the second-class pile. Which is discrimination. Which is wrong.
So we've established that there's TWO kinds of marriage, civil and religious. A civil union=civil marriage, religious union=religious marriage. Why does one have to be second to the other? I don't get it.....
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 10:45 PM   #120
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
People who think it's a sin now will still think so if the marriage was deemed legal, true. But at least the homosexuals would finally have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel. No one has the right to decide which sins are worse than others anyway. And unless we've committed a sin that is a crime and deserves punishment/jail, we should all enjoy the same legal rights, period. Though I may not agree with a lot that's said around here, I can certainly agree on that.
__________________

__________________
Liesje 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 12:41 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