New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 12 - 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, 11:53 AM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:18 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.
"Apparantly tolerated" is the exact phrase to use. It is "apparant" to you that God tolerated them, because you didn't read about any big punishment that God put on them for it. But you don't know what happened "under the surface" of the writings.

As an example, we'll bring it down to our level: Do you think that God tolerates our sins, simply because the consequences thereof may not be "apparent"?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:15 PM   #167
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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.



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.
Excellent post. I have to fight my disdain for the "defenders of the faith" to maintain my own Christian beliefs.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 12:52 PM   #168
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:18 PM
A good friend of mine has been together with his wife 6 years, 2 years of dating, 4 years of marriage. Their third year of marriage found out they were distant cousins...

Will they burn in hell? Should their marriage be revoked?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:02 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
A good friend of mine has been together with his wife 6 years, 2 years of dating, 4 years of marriage. Their third year of marriage found out they were distant cousins...

Will they burn in hell? Should their marriage be revoked?
No. I dont know if this is common. But I spoke to a muslim friend of mine from Morroco and he showed me a picture of his cousin and he said in his religion he could marry his cousin?? He said he would have but she is just got married.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:10 PM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.
Yes, Irvine, we are brothers. We are both born into a tough, brutal world. Each of us has our own mountain to conquer. Our mountains are not the same, but the struggle is similar.
The reason I am using something like polygamy as an illustration is because it would be an example of a marriage outside of the God ordained definition of marriage. If we use the classical syllogism style of argument - I am asserting the following:

A genuine marriage is defined by God as a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 Matthew 19:5 Mark 10:7-8 Ephesians 5:31)
A union of anyone other than one man and a one woman is not a marriage.
Therefore, a homosexual union or a multi-partner union is not a marriage.

By asking me to redefine marriage, you are asking me to contradict something I think the Bible makes very clear. That is something I am not willing to do, regardless of whether or not it is popular from the FYM crowd.

Your next point may also be: why should the Christian definition of marriage be the legal definition? My answer to this, as I’ve posted before, is that we ALL vote our moral views. I will vote my Christian moral views and pray that they prevail. If they don’t, I’ll keep voting and praying and do my best to lead as many people to Christ as possible until God calls me home.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:32 PM   #171
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


By asking me to redefine marriage, you are asking me to contradict something I think the Bible makes very clear. That is something I am not willing to do, regardless of whether or not it is popular from the FYM crowd.

You've redefined Paul's stance on women in the church haven't you?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:39 PM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Yes, Irvine, we are brothers. We are both born into a tough, brutal world. Each of us has our own mountain to conquer. Our mountains are not the same, but the struggle is similar.
The reason I am using something like polygamy as an illustration is because it would be an example of a marriage outside of the God ordained definition of marriage. If we use the classical syllogism style of argument - I am asserting the following:

A genuine marriage is defined by God as a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 Matthew 19:5 Mark 10:7-8 Ephesians 5:31)
A union of anyone other than one man and a one woman is not a marriage.
Therefore, a homosexual union or a multi-partner union is not a marriage.

By asking me to redefine marriage, you are asking me to contradict something I think the Bible makes very clear. That is something I am not willing to do, regardless of whether or not it is popular from the FYM crowd.

Your next point may also be: why should the Christian definition of marriage be the legal definition? My answer to this, as I’ve posted before, is that we ALL vote our moral views. I will vote my Christian moral views and pray that they prevail. If they don’t, I’ll keep voting and praying and do my best to lead as many people to Christ as possible until God calls me home.


you make a case for barring homosexuals from religious marriage in your own church; but you have not made the case for barring homosexuals from the legal benefits and social recognition of marriage in the eyes of the state.

so you have an emotional, irrational argument, but not a reasoned, logical argument.

the comparisons to polygamy and incest remain offensive.

here's my question to you: is your right to express your "Christian moral views" more important than the right to equal protection under the law? if your "Christian moral views" endorsed anti-miscegenation laws, would you vote for politicians who sought to pass a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage?

also, why is it so important for you to have your various "Christian moral values" perfectly reflected in the laws of the country? why do you need that enshrined into law? why can't you take a live-and-let-live perspective? is it insecurity? is your religion so fragile that it will not survive unless we erect legal protections for your specific beliefs? why do you view the government and the legal system as tools of evangalism? in short, why do you see it necessary to deny the rights of others in order further your own religious beliefs?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:40 PM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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?
Set aside same-sex marriage for a moment. Conservatives made the same argument in the early 90's during the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown episode. While recognizing all adults rights to autonomy and the individual pursuit of happiness, it was becoming obvious that divorce and out-of-wedlock births were transforming the lives of American children and thus society. And for daring to suggest that "evidence tells us that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children," conservatives were said to be attacking single moms and called "mean" for suggesting that the best way to avoid poverty was to graduate, marry and then have children. In that order.

It's not about denying rights to anyone but the recognizing, favoring and promoting of an ideal. Yes, single moms can raise wonderful children, yes a gay couple can raise wonderful children, yes some couples never have children and yes, a hetro couple can provide a terrible home. But on the whole, aren't children better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father?
Which makes the reason of Sullivan-like arguments for same-sex marriage much more persuasive than the cacophony of "bigot" and "hater" that seems to be the best some here can muster up.

Just for fun, who can tell me who said this?
Quote:
"The amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize. One response has been to normalize what was once considered deviant behavior, such as out-of-wedlock birth. An accompanying response has been to detect deviance in what once stood as a social norm, such as the married-couple family. Together these responses reduce the acknowledged levels of deviance by eroding earlier distinctions between the normal and the deviant.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:40 PM   #174
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Your next point may also be: why should the Christian definition of marriage be the legal definition? My answer to this, as I’ve posted before, is that we ALL vote our moral views.
But why should your moral views prevail over the civil rights of others?

If I believe that Christians should be excluded from voting and other rights because they are different from me, do I have the right to legislate that belief?

Christians seem to think they do have the right to put their beliefs into legislation.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:42 PM   #175
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:18 PM
INDY don't forget Jesus was conceived by an unwed mother...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:45 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
INDY don't forget Jesus was conceived by an unwed mother...
I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Mary did not "conceive" in the same way anyone else ever has. She was indeed a virgin until the day she married.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:46 PM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha

Christians seem to think they do have the right to put their beliefs into legislation.
It's not just Christians or even conservatives who think this.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:49 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
INDY don't forget Jesus was conceived by an unwed mother...
Quote:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Merry Christmas!
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:49 PM   #179
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Mary did not "conceive" in the same way anyone else ever has. She was indeed a virgin until the day she married.
But it still didn't fit in the status quo of what's a proper family.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:50 PM   #180
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:18 PM
What's your point INDY? You don't think I know the story?
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 04:18 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