New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 16 - 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, 07:57 PM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




can you offer a secular perspective on the civil rights movement?
No.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 08:09 PM   #227
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
I never said you were required to have kids to have a legit marriage.
You're right. It was INDY and 80s who hide behind the kids to make their points.


I'll wait for them to answer my question. I suspect I'll be waiting for some time.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 08:22 PM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
could we talk about marriage equality and not biblical verses?

we don't refer to Biblical versus to justify other laws, why should we do so in this instance?
Sorry, Irvine, but I thought that was worth bringing up again
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 08:29 PM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 06:32 AM
I'm still waiting on why there's no section on divorce in the criminal code. It would fit in nicely between fraud and false pretence, I think.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 09:42 PM   #230
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




can you offer a secular perspective on the civil rights movement?
Even from a liberal perspective, the civil rights movement could be said to have been a spiritual movement. The leaders were ministers and they used Christianity for much of their philosophical orientation.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 10:14 PM   #231
Acrobat
 
enggirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Superstar Trailer Park
Posts: 435
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Somebody please answer this question.

I may have wedding gifts to return after 17 years of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Damn childlessness.
Hey, martha--I'm with ya there. I'll be hitting 12 years this december and NO kids!! And I'm not alone. I'm surrounded at work by couples who have decided not to procreate. I guess we're just a bunch of heterosexual, college-educated, second-class citizens.
__________________
enggirl is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 10:51 PM   #232
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I'm still waiting on why there's no section on divorce in the criminal code. It would fit in nicely between fraud and false pretence, I think.
Sorry, but count me out. I've loaded the clones and robot into the Jupiter 2 and we're heading home for the weekend for some skiing, fishing and obelisk worshipping on the Stanley Brock canal near the southern pole of Mars. Back on Monday.
Miss ya already.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 12:21 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
And would someone please update me on the state of my intentionally childless marriage?!

If you don't want kids, that's a-ok with me. In fact, I applaud you for being committed to the man you love. Kids aren't for everyone.

My view is that society should encourage those who want to have children to get married to do so, because it shows committment in a legally binding way. This says nothing against those who want to get married and not have children. It just encourages the traditional family unit - a man, a woman, and children.

Yes, I said "traditional", a word many of you equate with "archaic" and even "evil".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 12:43 AM   #234
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
If you don't want kids, that's a-ok with me.


Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
The following is an excerpy from a Mormon online newsletter, the Merdian. No, I am not a Mormon, but yes, I agree with what the author says.

How Marriage Is Hurt

“totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship between a man, a woman, and a child.”

If you change the definition of marriage you sever it from its very purpose for existing -- you sever reproduction from parenthood and that is a radical experiment. If you say gender doesn’t matter to marriage, then you are also saying that gender doesn’t matter to parenthood.

Marriage is about securing a father and a mother to their offspring.
Which is it? Ok? Or won't somebody think of the children?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 01:07 AM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the establishment clause.

Just to clarify - the establishment clause does not mention the "separation of Church and State."
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 01:16 AM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha



Which is it? Ok? Or won't somebody think of the children?
Well, Martha, I've got to admit that you have got me. I do not agree with that line from the article:

"Marriage is about securing a father and a mother to their offspring."

That is not the only thing marriage is about.

I definitely think that there is nothing wrong with a man and woman getting married and deciding they do not want children.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 01:39 AM   #237
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:32 AM
I just thought I would mention that I am HUGE St. Louis Cardinals fan (born and raised there). Wow! What a night for LaRussa and the boys (especially Eckstein!)

Congrats Cards!

No need to reply...
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 04:56 AM   #238
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 05:32 AM
I'm apparently on AEON's ignore list...

His lost.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 09:13 AM   #239
Refugee
 
mkdominatr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:32 AM
I dont understand why this topic has to have such a church-state relartion. I think its great what NJ is doing. Allow unions and marriages to all people and if people want to take it further they can go to their respected religious institutions.

Its a good start.
__________________
mkdominatr is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 09:15 AM   #240
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: 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


These are all great examples of the negative consequences of such actions and consequences of the Fall. I encourage you to re-read them. These are certainly not endorsements.
I'm not arguing that there weren't negative consequences. I'm not arguing that God endorsed these types of marriage. There most certainly were--especially in reference to polygamy. We see the heartache in Abraham and Jacobs families as a result of this type of marriage. I can't think of any specific examples relating the marriages between Isaac and Rebekah (since they were relatives) but I'm sure there was a price to be paid of some sort there as well. These types of marriage were not part of God's ideal plan. BUT, I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that God did NOT make allowances for them. And God did NOT make allowances for everything--he certainly didn't tolerate David's adultery. If God really felt it necessary to shut down polgyamy and marriage between relatives He would most certainly have done so, and I'm pretty certain He would have started with those who were His people, men "after His own heart" as David is described.

I'm not arguing that there mightn't be negative consequences related to gay marriage either. I am saying, that if God made allowances for something that wasn't part of His original plan in Biblical times, is it possible that He might do the same today?

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Because your original premise is false, this conclusion is automatically false.
You misunderstood my original premise.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Maycocksean, in reference to Christians living by “the Bible tells me so” – as a Christian, certainly you understand the importance of your statement. Since you claim to be a big believer in the Bible, you certainly won’t mind if I throw a few passages your way. I refer you to Matthew 4: 4 – “4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Obviously, your Lord and Savior thinks it is quite important to do things precisely because the Bible tell you so.
My reference to "the Bible tells me so" was not a scornful reference to living by the Word of God. I believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, so that puts you and I on the same footing Biblically--you won't be able to dismiss me as a secular humanist, I'm afraid. I am however, very wary of those, who assume that their understanding of scripture is above reproach or question. I've had people tell me that my marriage to my wife who is of a different race than I am is wrong because "the Bible tells them so." So while I have the utmost respect and reverence for God's Word, I'm not inclined to accept something as Truth just because someone says this is what the Bible "says." I think we have to be particularly careful about what we think the Bible says it when it seems to dovetail nicely with our prejudices and discomfort about changes that are taking place in our society. There are still many people who are very uncomfortable with interracial marriage and if they're convinced that the Bible speaks against it, it very conveniently justifies their opposition to it.

Not to change the subject here, but the Bible clearly teaches that the Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day-not Saturday, not Sunday. I have a feeling that you would disagree with me, and I could easily make the argument that you are choosing to follow the traditions of men rather than the plain Word of God. So these accusations can cut both ways. My question is this: How do you decide what to pick and choose? Because everyone picks and chooses. The reason we have so many denominations in Protestantism is because no one wants to admitt this. Especially in more conservative Protestantism, we simply make the argument that "we follow what the Bible says, the others don't." I know my church makes that argument, and I'm willing to bet yours does too.

My purpose is not to insult you or your--our--faith. You seem very sincere, and you generally display courtesy and conviction in your posts--it's one of the reasons I keep going with the discussion. You do come off a bit smug sometimes, but my guess is that I do too, so I can't fault your for that. And it does take great courage to take an unpopular stand. But taking an unpopular stand doesn't inherently make you right. You could take a stand against integration at a civil rights march and you would be unpopular, but that wouldn't make you any less wrong.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean 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 06:32 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