New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 11 - 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, 06:37 AM   #151
The Fly
 
Greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from a cup of coffee
Posts: 282
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
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.
I think this is true in some cases but others can and have changed their views. Someone earlier in this thread said that they were brought up believing gay marriages were wrong but they've since changed their opinion on the matter. In some respects you can compare gay marriages to interracial marriages. These were illegal not so long ago in some countries and whilst you still get some people who would disapprove of such marriages, society is becoming more tolerant. I'd guess that generally younger people take a more relaxed view of gay/mixed marriages than their elders, so over time I think they will become more socially acceptable.
As an aside I've always understood marriage to be an evolving institution. In Roman and Greek times it was basically a civil arrangement and it was only after the Roman Empire ended that Christians introduced a religious ceremony for it. For centuries afterwards it was more often than not a property arrangement and you were lucky if love came into it at all. Fewer and fewer people are bothering to tie the knot nowadays, (certainly in the UK) so good on anyone who's prepared to make that committment whatever their sexual persuasion.
__________________

__________________
Greenlight is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 08:42 AM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?
It's not really worth trying to argue with illogical Rick Santorum thinking, even though there's 10+ pages of people trying to argue with it here. But brothers and sisters and polygamy don't have one iota to do with this subject. Period, end of story. It's illogical. I'd like to really marry Bruce Springsteen, but it ain't happening. And if gay marriage is legal, that wouldn't make me any more able to marry Bruce. Unless he comes out as a gay man and I have a sex change and come out as a gay man.

Plenty of people want to get married and do get married who shouldn't be married. Plenty of STRAIGHT people. But straight marriage, no matter how bad and unhealthy it is (and no matter how much either person cheats or doesn't give a crap about the marriage) is automatically inherently "sanctified" and superior. That's a joke in my eyes, and that's logical thinking in my opinion.

And for crying out loud how many times are we going to have 10 + page threads about this subject? It would be nice to have 10+ page threads about other subjects.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:07 AM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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)
Christ and Paul define marriage in the NT. And even in the OT, polygamy isn't exactly endorsed - it usually brings a host of problems.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:11 AM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


And for crying out loud how many times are we going to have 10 + page threads about this subject? It would be nice to have 10+ page threads about other subjects.
You just extended the thread that much more...
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:13 AM   #155
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: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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've been married to a man for 17 years. I have no children and married with the intention of never having children. Where to people like us fit in to your definition of marriage?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:14 AM   #156
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 AM
If you want to get technical, you are the one who really extended it. How many posts do you have vs how many I have? You asked me a question, so I thought I'd have the courtesy to answer it. Guess I should have ignored it.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:14 AM   #157
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: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Christ and Paul define marriage in the NT.
Christ and Paul do not belong in Congress.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:15 AM   #158
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: 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
You asked me a question, so I thought I'd have the courtesy to answer it. Guess I should have ignored it.
AEON is completely comfortable ignoring questions.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:59 AM   #159
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


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.

yes, i read Sully, and his arguments for marriage are intellectually sound and have been around since 1989.

anyway, i see where your argument comes from, but it is seriously flawed. if marriage is ONLY about children, then we should reserve marriage for couples until after the have their first child, or first conceive. this would mean that infertile people, post-menopausal women, the elderly, and those who choose never to have children have no right to be married.

because it's all about the children.

there are many, many children out there who have great gay parents -- two moms, two dads, and let's not forget that gay parents are much more likely to adopt children that are usually deemed less desireable by straight couples (non-white babies, babies born with HIV, etc.) -- if marriage is about children, and we have children with two great parents, why not let those parents get married?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 10:00 AM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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.


yes, but you're not being excluded for from the institution.

try walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

and, please, address my earlier comments. i spent a good amount of time addressing each and every one of your points. it would be great if you could do the same.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 10:06 AM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Christ and Paul do not belong in Congress.


true.

they currently occupy the White House.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:17 AM   #162
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:03 AM
I'd just as soon make a deal with the people who oppose gay marriage. Let's agree to disagree. We're never going to change each other's minds.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:31 AM   #163
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




do you think homosexuality is the work of Satan?

and do you realize, though, that talking about "The Enemy" to the family and then including homosexuality and gay marriage is incredibly offensive to me?

to view me as a threat? to view my relationship as a threat? to think that i'm somehow working to undo the foundations of society? to think that i am a threat to heterosexual relationships when i was a product of one?

Irvine, you asked me to answer your questions. I am assuming you mean these because I think I did try to answer the other questions. I do apologize if I can’t response to every reply from every person – threads move along pretty fast and I do the best I can with the time that I have. Please do not be insulted.

Do I think that homosexuality is the work of Satan? Before I answer this setup question – I do want to mention that the entire universe is in a fallen state and that you and I were both born with, shall I say, a genetic predisposition for selfishness. However, I am a person whom has accepted Christ into his life, and the life I know live is one with Christ’s indwelling presence and I have been rescued from this fallen universe. As such, as a walking, breathing Christian I accept God’s Word as Truth and I rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate these Truths to me.

One of these Truths is written by John, possible the dearest friend of Christ: (1 John 2:3-6) “3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.”

A few passages later, John hits the nail on the head: “15Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.”

And finally, there is this salient point: “20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you (he is addressing Christians here) know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

According to the Scripture that I live by, everything comes from one of two sources: God or the World (Satan, Enemy).

Now, I do not intend to personally offend you. All I can do is share my views as best as I can – but there is no guarantee that I won’t offend you because essentially, at your core, you completely disagree with me. But I won’t change a conviction that I hold simply because it makes someone feel better.

I also do not think that MY main question has been answered. I still have no answer as to what moral reasoning do non-Christians use to disallow incest and polygamy?

And another note to all of those that claim I am suggesting a Taliban style nation. First, jumping to this conclusion, Melon, is similar to the link you provided that discusses the fallacy that many threads eventually evoke (the Nazis.) It is an extreme stretch, at best. Secondly, we ALL vote our moral views. Whether it is murder, abortion, rape, stealing, insider trading, or steroids in baseball – we all make rules and laws based on moral views. The more important questions is this – where are your moral views coming from? I know the answer to this question – and so did John. It is either from God or the World. And I choose God.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:33 AM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
If you want to get technical, you are the one who really extended it. How many posts do you have vs how many I have? You asked me a question, so I thought I'd have the courtesy to answer it. Guess I should have ignored it.
I was actually kidding...
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 11:49 AM   #165
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I also do not think that MY main question has been answered. I still have no answer as to what moral reasoning do non-Christians use to disallow incest and polygamy?

i have answered this repeatedly. repeatedly.

polygamy and incest imply relationships that do not have meaningful consent; the history of polygamy is one of an older man and many underaged girls, and incest usually imples an older man and a younger woman, and incest comes with the risk of massive birth defects.

this is why society has made these activities illegal. if you'd like to challenge that, fine, but do not draw homosexuality in as a basis of comparison because there is not one to be made. both incest and polygamy are expressions of heterosexuality, thus rendering the comparison to homosexuality irrelevant. homosexuality isn't an expression, it isn't an act, it isn't comparable to polygamy or incest. it is ONLY comparable to heterosexuality which is likewise not an expression nor an act. it is an orientation.

you simply cannot say, "IF gay marriage, THEN polygamy" because there's no logical flow from one point to the next. it's akin to saying, "IF we allow premarital sex, THEN we'll have to make rape legal."

AEON, the problem here is not that i disagree with you, it's that you aren't willing to attempt to understand homosexuality as an orientation. to you, and i say this because the only way that your logic flows, homosexuality is a compulsion, an expression of a warped sexuality, an act, like stealing.

so i'm going to do my best to convince you that we're EXACTLY the same. that my homosexuality is EXACTLY like your heterosexuality.

i am not your enemy. i am your brother.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 01:03 AM.


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