New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 10 - 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 10-27-2006, 12:13 AM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Church has not always equaled conservative, maybe you should do a little more studying...
The mainstream church has always had conservative moral values.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:20 AM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Slavery, inter-racial marriage, women's voting rights, civil rights... social conservatives have been on the wrong side of them all.
Don't forget stem-cell research. Conservatives hate science and love to see people suffer you know.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:23 AM   #138
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


The mainstream church has always had conservative moral values.
This is completely revisionist, something conservatives have always had a problem with.

Jesus was a rebel for his time, his teachings went against where a lot of the church leaders were at the time. There was nothing socially conservative about him at all.

The terms conservative and liberal are relative to the current social atmosphere. Something that is status quo now may have been very liberal 50 to 100 years ago.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:24 AM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Don't forget stem-cell research. Conservatives hate science and love to see people suffer you know.
If you say so.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:29 AM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The terms conservative and liberal are relative to the current social atmosphere. Something that is status quo now may have been very liberal 50 to 100 years ago.
Then why bring up Slavery and woman's suffrage?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:37 AM   #141
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Then why bring up Slavery and woman's suffrage?
Ok, I see where you may be confused. I meant to say "the current social atmoshere of any given time"
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:15 AM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what could be more conservative than seeking to place adults into stable relationships and giving structure, meaning, and purpose to sexual intercourse?

and please feel free to answer my questions: why would you bar me access to the institution of marriage on the basis of an immutable orientation that poses no harm to society, is shared by a sizeable population, and would greatly benefit that population?
Good question. It's clear to see who else reads Andrew Sullivan around here. If we could call such an arrangement a "civil union" we might be on to something.
However, I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, to believe marriage an institution reserved for one man and one woman. Of the myriad of arguments both pro and con, I feel none can trump the simple notion that children benefit from having both a mother and a father. It is therefore, in my eyes, the ideal arrangement for nurturing children, the most likely to further and foster society and should thusly be promoted.

I wouldn't expect you to agree of coarse, but I think you can understand my position.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:19 AM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Why not just say it this way from the beginning then, it makes a lot more sense and is a lot more effective than what you were saying.

Well, why would you want to deny that right to incestuous couples? Solely and exclusively because the Bible says so? You cannot think of a single other reason why this might be bad, truly have zero convictions on the subject other than that's what the Bible says so you're going with that, even though you personally are at a loss to imagine what any rational arguments against it might look like otherwise?

As already mentioned--why then do you not then bring up the comparisons to incest and polygamy when heterosexual marriages between atheists and agnostics are alluded to? If these are not spiritual unions (and I don't see how they could be) then logically, are they not also the work of "the Enemy" and worthy of being resisted just as loudly and vigorously?

Well, we've gone around on this one before. Yes, in the handful of passages where Jesus refers to marriage, the hypothetical he invokes always involves a man and a woman--hardly surprising, as Jewish law would not have recognized any other type anyway and that was, after all, his audience. He doesn't, though, say anything about age at, nor personal choice in, marriage, so any "Biblical" argument against marrying a 12 year old girl to a 13 year old boy via parental arrangement (as was the norm at the time) would be illegitimate. Do you then think it's right for us to have laws deeming such things wrong today? If yes, then by what authority do we declare these things wrong?

A similar, if somewhat weaker, argument could be made concerning polygamy, IMO--which was also quite permissible under Jewish law at the time, though in practice this was never widespread as most men could not afford multiple wives, especially in a place like Galilee which was extremely poor and "backward" compared to other regions of Roman Judaea (and, again, provided the better part of Jesus' audience). It's a weaker argument to the extent that Jesus' brief references to marriage do involve hypothetical *monogamous* couples (the kind most of his audience would've belonged to--he didn't address the rich folks too often, right?) but, on the other hand, concerning that he never explicitly condemned polygamy either, it seems to me that this is more a case of taking advantage of what he didn't say (in the manner that, say, opponents of capital punishment often do) than of dutifully observing what the text never framed as a legal definition to begin with.

Is it the word itself that raises hackles, or the agenda of certain people who are fond of saturating their rhetoric with it? I have a family and a reasonably traditional one at that, but nonetheless I grit my teeth when I hear people like James Dobson jingoistically toss it around while explaining why (e.g.) women with children under 18 should not be allowed to work outside the home, just as I gritted my teeth when old-guard segregationist diehards back where I grew up pressed it into service to add a little flavor to their "Biblical" diatribes against "miscegenation."

Also, if you'd been following all his posts in here for the last couple years, Irvine has fondly mentioned his hope to have a family of his own someday numerous times. And there is nothing hostile or hateful there, to this parent's ear, when he talks about it.

In all humility and with due awareness of my own failures in this regard--if your goal is to educate than I think it would benefit you to work on your listening technique a little more.

That may be, but if so, it won't happen because people stopped bothering en masse. If the thousands of people who devoted a decade or more of their lives to the Civil Rights Movement had taken the attitude that they were going to give up on peaceful resistance and talking back, and maybe just wait for the impact of increasingly positive and diversifed media images of blacks to take effect, then not only would things have proceeded a whole lot slower, but also much of the moral urgency that gave its achievements a lasting impact on the American psyche would've been lost.
Yolland, the main point I am trying to make is that I am being asked to accept a redefinition of marriage, and I don’t think that one is necessary.

It seems the main reason why some feel that a redefinition of marriage is necessary is based on a desire to receive the “benefits” bestowed on traditionally married couples. If this is the reason on which to refine marriage – then I see no “reason” to open the floodgates all together. Why not? What reason do we have to limit these benefits to anyone? Please offer an answer not based on personal preference (most here are sickened by incest, but there are a few souls out there that really enjoy it – what are your reasons for denying them the benefits of marriage?)

For me, all of this is dealt with quite nicely by my faith. I have a source for my definition. What is the “source” for the definition for gay marriage other than feeling, societal trend, secular humanism, or moral relativism? I am not willing to put my faith in man or manmade ethics. Because you are Jewish – we share some scriptural foundations for values – and one of them comes from Proverbs 3:5 “5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

I do not redefine what the Lord has already defined so clearly for me in order to receive some perceived earthly benefit or reward. If I am in error, then I can at least take comfort in the fact that I did so in obedience to my perception of what my Lord has taught me. I can live with that. If some people don’t get what they desire, well, I can live with that as well. It happens to me all of the time. Usually I discover that what I desired and didn’t receive was not the Lord’s will for my life (and it always led to richer, deeper faith).

I realize that my opinion is in the minority in here. And I do fear that the tide of public opinion is against my position. Oh well. I know how the story ends.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:47 AM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:20 PM
It doesn't bother me and honestly I can't see why people who don't accept this based on some Biblical interpretation feel so threatened. The church is not required to perform these marriages. The church still maintains it's own definition of holy matrimony (not that I'm defending it). If the church is allowed to decide for itself what is right and wrong, why can't the government do the same for itself?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 03:59 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Now - if only we can get polygamy and incestual marriage legalized - then nobody who wants to marry will be denied.
Riveting thread, everyone.

Aeon, you walked right into this one and I'm amazed no ones called you on it yet.

At one time (specificially Biblical times) both were considered legal and apparently tolerated by God Himself.

Polgyamy: Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon--four that come to mind right off hand.

Incest: Isaac, Jacob (again), and, one would presume, the first generation of Adam's chidlren.

I think the burden is on the Biblical believer, not the secular humanist to "defend" these practices, particular as they relate to taking a stand against gay marriage. Based on a strictly "Biblical" standard, these two things--polygamy and incest--SHOULD by legal if gay marriage is not.

Clearly, if we outlaw these things today (and I think we should, particularly as they relate to minors), then the argument must be based on something more than "the Bible tells me so."

(And I'm a big believer in the Bible)
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 04:05 AM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




because we love each other and want to create a solid, stable union that will allow us to protect each other and our children should we choose to have them and we'd like the same validation and worth conferred unto heterosexual couples.

from a more philosophical standpoint, having marriage as a goal for homosexuals would give structure, meaning, and purpose to homosexual dating and relationships. i don't think heterosexuals are quite aware of how much the "marriage goal" shapes and structures their dating habits, from when they are teenagers all through their lives. homosexuals have no such structure.

in fact, marriage seems to me to be the conservative option. as a Christian, i'm sure you object to premarital sex because of the consequences of unregulated sexuality that occurs outside the boundaries of marrige. why not give the same thing to those promiscuous homosexuals?
Excellent, excellent points. You've pretty much described where I'm at philosophically right now. Still pretty conservative in my beliefs about sexual behavior outside of marriage, but convinced that homosexuals should be brought into the "marriage tent."

Excellent, excellent points Irvine. You've pretty much described where I'm at philosophically right now.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 04:27 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


It actually doesn't bother me in a micro sense.

However, to me it is yet another overall symptom of a nation slipping into moral chaos. In my opinion, the definition of marriage of easy. It was also easy for Jesus Christ.
Forgive me if I'm not as sympathetic to the view that our nation is slipping into moral chaos. Things were a lot more morally chaotic for blacks in Americaa hundred years ago and even fifty years ago than they are today. As a conservative Christian, I do see moral decay in our society, no question. I just don't romanticize the past as much, because I know that back in the good old days there were some truly amoral things that took place--things that in my view are certainly as immoral as anything going on in society today.

Homosexuality was widely practiced during ancient Greek times and somehow society managed to survive.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I personally believe that the Enemy is attacking the foundations of our society. That's the best place to attack if you want to destroy something. If we agree that one of the foundations of a society is the family, then it only makes sense the Enemy would seek to destroy it.
I think the Enemy is far more subtle, personally. I think Satan most dangerous attacks are at the church. The Enemy works to create a church who values checking off all the rules more than love, a church filled with pride in their own righteousness (or even worse taking pride in the righteousness Christ gives us as if it were own somehow), a church that has become infatuated with worldly power and influence, a church that is willing to force it's faith on others. The most dangerous sin of all is pride and what disturbed me as I read this thread is who demonstrates humility, and who demonstrates pride. I don't see much humility coming from the so-called defenders of faith. I see a lot of the spirit of Christ in posters like Irvine who bear up under contempt and derision with patience. Sadly too many of us Christians are modeling ourselves after the Limbaughs, the Coulters, the Hannity's, and O'Reilly's of this world. We've bought their alluring mix of pride and self-righteousness.

And after all, if Satan can corrupt the very source of salvation, if he can muffle and distort the message of Christ's love. If he can get people to the point where they associate the name of Jesus with arrogance, pride, hypocrisy, and bigotry, well then he's got the game in the bag.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 04:36 AM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


How do you define social conservatives?
At a most basic level, conservatives prefer to maintain the status quo or to return things to percieved better time in the past. A conservative doesn't like change.

Liberals, on the other hand are the ones that generally agitate for change.

Equating religiosity and conservatism isn't really accurate. And church people invovled in the civil rights movement, women's voting rights, the abolition of slavery etc were hardly considered "conservative" in their day. To some degree they were all considered, "radicals"--liberals, when it boils right down to it.

So, by their very nature, social conservatives have been on the wrong side of postive social change. I think it's important to point out that they've been on the right side when it comes to opposing negative social change. They just oppose change. That's what makes them conservative.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 04:41 AM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Irvine, I just wanted to say publicly that you've been amazing on this thread.

I know you're ambivalent about religous faith, but I saw the love of God in you.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 05:26 AM   #150
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 03:20 PM


what a thought provoking thread.

My thought is I don't think you can argue with a religious person who uses their beleifs to guide their opinions. They obviously believe the bible and god is giving them hints or summat, and therfore how can you argue with that? I mean, its just pointless.

And i think the gay rights people just need to stop over reaching for the 'marriage' part. Sure i believe two men or two women have the right to be married, have the same rights as every other person, and dont have a probelm with it being called a 'marriage' but i think the real reason they never seem to be happy is this - you want it called a marriage because you want acceptance, you want to be like every other "normal" marriage.

But you know what - its NEVER going to happen. you will NVER be accepted completely by society, because there are people out there that CANNOT comprehend what you stand for. This isn't a colour of your skin, or your sex, or if you're fat or skinny, this is something deeper and harder to accept. I can understand people who can't, even if i don't agree.

And this is why arguing is futile, because people are never going to change their minds.
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy 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 11:20 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