New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 17 - 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 10-28-2006, 09:32 AM   #241
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Gay marriage, adoption and reproductive assistance should be encouraged, more kids is a useful thing for a country.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:01 AM   #242
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: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Trying to live a life as Christ would live it does not mean that we are “romanticizing the past.” I too want a great, beautiful future for humanity. But that doesn’t mean I need to equate gay marriage with “progress” – I think it is “regress.”

My reference to "romanticizing the past" had nothing to do with living as Christ would live. It had everything to do with making the point that society say fifty or a hundred years ago was hardly more "moral" just because traditional marriage was being honored. During the days of slavery, traditional marriage was only allowed for white people anyway. Blacks had to make do.

I'm also not saying that humanity is headed for a "great, beautiful future" and you're just standing in the way. I believe as long as there is sin in this world, there will never be a utopia here on earth. However, perhaps, contradictorially, that doesn't stop me from trying to make the world a better place.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Now who is romanticizing the past?
As you well know, Paul attacked Greek culture up and down. And what is so marvelous about the early church is that it spread like wildfire amongst the Greeks. Why? Because they were thirsty for a better life. They knew full well that living a worldly life led to nothing but deep despair, loneliness, and destruction.

I knew that statement would get me into trouble. I thought about it later and wished I hadn't posted it. It's not the strongest argument, I agree. I'm surprised you didn't mention that much of that homosexuality was the pederasty that Melon refers to--that's the first thing I thought of, in hindsight. My point, not very strongly made, was that homosexuality being more accepted does not NECESSARILY indicate the collapse of that society. I agree that our culture has a real problem in the area of sexual morality and that it is harming our families and our society. But it seems a little odd, that when one group starts saying, "Hey we don't want to be promiscuous, we want to be faithful, committed, monagomous" we shut the door on them.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
The Enemy certainly does attack the church. He especially loves to send wolves dressed in sheep’s clothes. But they can be easily spotted when you allow the Spirit to open your eyes. It becomes very apparent when they mock God’s very Word and try to confuse God’s children by trying to distort Truth for their need to be accepted by the world.

It's kind of ironic isn't it, that both of us view the other as a well-intentioned, perhaps sincere, but rather dangerous distorter of God's Word, God's Love, and God's character.

Let's be clear. I would never "mock God's very Word" and if that's what you thought I was doing, you would be very much mistaken.

If indeed, I am a "wolf in sheep's clothing", then I'm currently unaware of it. If I can be shown that I'm wrong, convicted by the Spirit that I've been in error, I'm willing to accept that. It's a scary thought to think that you might be mistakenly advancing the cause of the wrong side--believe me, I've thought and prayed about it a lot, and continue to do so, especially because my recent conclusions run counter to what my church and most of conservative Christianity is teaching. I want to do His will and not my own (as much of a struggle as that can often be).

Finally, my views are not--I sincerely hope--motivated by a desire to be accepted by the world. Believe me, I've wrestled with this question a lot. Am I changing my views just so that I can gain the admiration of the majority posters on FYM? Am I trying to stay current with where society is going? Yeah, it's gratifying to have others support what I say, and yeah, that worries me. But, being as honest as I can with myself, I must conclude that where I'm coming from is not motivated merely by a desire for acceptance. It's come from my experience with people that I know and love who are gay and lesbian and sensing that what I'd always understood the Bible to teach just wasn't adding up. What I post here, I post from conviction, AEON, not from a desire to pander.

The thing is, I've seriously wrestled with whether I might be wrong in my conclusions. I'll cop to that, no problem. The question is, have you?


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
You seem to equate defending God’s Word as being self righteous. Why do you make this leap of reasoning?

I certainly don't equate defending God's word with being self-righteous. God's Word is true and it always will be. However the people declaring that they know what it says are sometimes wrong, and when someone refuses to consider that they might be in the wrong, yes that is self-righteous.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
We are called to always be prepared to explain our Christian hope. I try my best to do this with gentleness and respect.

You do and I see that even if not everyone does.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
While I do think that many here hate what I am saying, but I really do my best to be respectful – even though it is difficult to seem so when people are already hostile to your views before you even start typing.

Well, you're tackling an issue that is deeply painful and personal for many on this thread. And even in your respectful approach, you inadvertently communicate a kind of disregard for their struggle as if it's merely some person's "selfish desire to do what they want." I remembe the utmost gentleness and respect with which an older gentleman, a prayer partner of mine, told me on hearing that I was marrying my wife, that "well, it would be okay. As long as we didn't have children." Just because something is spoken in gentleness and without f-bombs doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. And it doesn't mean it's true either.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Yes, pride is very dangerous. However, please don’t equate acquiescence with humility.

While we are at it, please don’t equate acquiescence with love either.
It's not about acquiescence. It's not about winning or losing. You can be humble without giving in. It simply means listening, and acknowledging the possiblity of being wrong, yet maintaining your position until proved otherwise.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:21 AM   #243
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: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON



That being said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I still encourage you to do your own research (i.e. read the Bible for yourself - esp. John)
The book of John is excellent. It's probably my favorite in the entire Bible.

But, AEON, what do you make of this story, one account of which is found in Mark 12: 18-26. Jesus says: "Is not the reason you are mistaken that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven. (Mark 12:24-25, NASB).

(I'm not asking this to trap you, as the Sadducees, were. Otherwise I really would be that "wolf in sheeps clothing" This is a sincere question and I do think it can contribute to this discussion). Obviously there is a lot of disagreement as to what Jesus meant in his response. My own grandparents couldn't agree. They always argued (good naturedly of course, since they both trusted that which ever side turned out to be right it would be for the best since it was God making the decision) about it, with one saying that no, they would no longer be married in heaven, and the other saying yes they would.

I have my own ideas. I'm curious to know what you think.

(Apologies to everyone else who is tired of all the Bible verses. Please bear with us. For those of us who are conservative Christians, change has to come through Biblical understanding so this is necessary. And no it's not impossible for a conservative Christian to change. I did).
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:33 AM   #244
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: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


"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"?
I think my response to AEON on this topic pretty much covers this. I wasn't arguing that there weren't negative consequences. I'm only arguing that God did not put an outright ban on either practice at the time, something He certainly could have done.

I don't think that God tolerates our sins, no. He offers through His grace to set us free from them. It's true the consequences of our sins aren't always apparent. But what's sometimes isn't apparent, and sometimes is, are the consequences we reap with behaviors that God has allowed but that are not part of his original plan. For example, one can hardly argue that in pre-fall Eden, Adam and Eve were slaughtering cattle to make burgers. God's original plan was a vegetarian diet. His original plan was for us to live healthily (and in my church we try to live according to that original plan), and we can see the consequences in and out of the church when we choose to eat, drink, and live unhealthily. Some (among the super conservative in my denomination, especially) would argue that is sin. I won't go that far--after all Jesus ate meat and He was without sin--but I will say that God has shown a history of allowing practices that were not part of his original plan without it being sin, per se. We still reap the consequences of those choices but it's not in the same category as willful disobedience of God's law.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:43 AM   #245
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: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy




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.
Not pointless. You just have to be willing to argue from Scripture. Many religious people recognize that they may be wrong in their understanding and are willing to change if that wrong can be pointed out to them. I'm one of those religious people.


Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
And this is why arguing is futile, because people are never going to change their minds.
I guess I'm just not willing to accept this. I've always believed that people can change. I've seen it happen when it comes to issues of racism. It can happen in other arenas too. True, I don't think you can every change EVERYONE'S mind about a given topic, but you can change some.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:55 AM   #246
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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".


so how is a homosexual couple any different from a straight couple, if and when we remove the "marriage is for children" line of thought as you've just done?

why should homosexuals -- many of whom do want kids -- NOT be encouraged to get married to do so in order to show their commitment in a legally binding way.

i totally agree with your assessment of a "traditional" marriage. i am the product of one.

but why do you have to exclude homosexuals from that?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:57 AM   #247
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Wait, that post wasn't directed at you?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:57 AM   #248
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Just to clarify - the establishment clause does not mention the "separation of Church and State."


it's abundantly implicit.

you want to fuck up Christianity in this country? just go ahead and let the government step in and make it it's mission not just to cut your taxes but to save your souls.

just try it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 10:59 AM   #249
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I definitely think that there is nothing wrong with a man and woman getting married and deciding they do not want children.


so then you realize that the Mormon article you posted has no relevance to gay marriage, yes?

why can a man and a man get married, or a woman and a woman, and then they never have children?

if marriage is about love and commitment and security and a stabilizing force on society, why would you deliberately exclude some of society's most vulnerable citizens from that insitution?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:08 AM   #250
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: 12:27 PM
Here's my take on the whole issue of children.

I do believe that a child is BEST raised in a home with a man and a woman. I do believe that each gender brings unique qualities that help a child grow and develop best.

HOWEVER, I do not think that this means that any other type of environment should be banned or prevented from happening. We live an in an imperfect difficult world and we're talking about about a sliding scale here, not "it's either the ideal or nothing."

There are many situations far worse for a child than to be raised by gay parents. As has been pointed out by other posters already a child is much better off in a gay home than in an orphanage etc. I do think there are costs to not being raised in the "ideal", costs perhaps that we're not yet even aware of but that does not mean that that something that is not the "ideal" should be banned outright.

I realize that this view might cost me some goodwill with many of you here at FYM--but despite, what AEON, might think--everything I've posted, I've posted from personal conviction, not to earn kudos from the majority. So all I can tell you is where I'm at right now. It is not my wish to offend or hurt anyone here (and I do realize the potential to do so having been hurt or offended by well meaning friends on a different but similar issue that I've already mentioned earlier).

Here's the thing. I wasn't raised in an ideal home. My parents split when I was seven and I was raised basically by a single parent, my mom. And there were costs that came with that. To say that is no insult to my mother. She is an amazing woman, who I think did an amazing job And it was better for us to be raised just by her than to continue living with my father who was a physically abusive, misogynistic, religious fanatic. But even though being apart from him was by far the better of the two options there were still costs. My MOM will tell you there were costs in not having the ideal. I see it in me. I see it in my siblings, especially in my sister. Not having a father cost us something (though not near as much as having the particular father I was born to would have).

Lest anyone think I'm carelessly drawing my conclusions without having to deal with being painted with the "less than ideal" brush myself, let me also say this:

I also think there will be costs to my children being raised in a mixed race environment too--at least if we return to the United States. I don't think races, or at least the divisions and prejudices between races was part of God's original plan either, and so when two races or cultures come together--unfortunately because of sin, there are costs. However, I don't think that means, as my friend I mentioned in an earlier post suggested, that my wife and I should not have children. The costs are bearable and are outweighed by the gift of life and loving home we hope to provide them. I should know because I grew up the product of multi-racial family and experienced the costs AND benefits of that "less than ideal" as well.

I believe the same to be true when it comes to gays parents as well.

I don't imagine I'll find anyone on either side of the fence to agree with this point of view, but oh well.

Unpopular enough for you, AEON?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:17 AM   #251
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: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




it's abundantly implicit.

you want to fuck up Christianity in this country? just go ahead and let the government step in and make it it's mission not just to cut your taxes but to save your souls.

just try it.
Straight up.

What part of "My kingdom is not of this world" do they not understand?

And who can name one example of a so-called "theocracy" (actually run by fallible humans--not God--who claim infallibility) that has ever been anything other than an absolute disaster for both the religion and the government. Earthly power welded to faith corrupts the faith, and the unassailable nature of religious faith--basically harmless outside of the political sphere--turns the government into brutal tyranny.

I believe heaven will be a theocracy, but that's because God Himself will be actually in charge. Not some guy (or group of guys) who thinks he knows everything God wants. In the meantime a secular (as opposed to atheistic or theocratic) government gives everyone the freedom to make their own choices about God, which is as it should be.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:22 AM   #252
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:27 PM
What bothers me about all this "ideal family" rhetoric is that I don't know why a bunch of armchair psychologists would know what's best for a child over actual psychologists and child services experts.

Every case is a unique case, as I see it. Some children live with highly abusive heterosexual parents. Some children are adopted by highly abusive heterosexual parents. There have been a couple high profile cases around where I live regarding this. One was where a heterosexual couple adopted ten or so children and put them in cages. Another heterosexual couple abused their adopted son, starved him nearly to death, then violently killed and dismembered him.

A penis and a vagina does not automatically make you great parents. Being gay or lesbian or single does not automatically make you bad parents. There are many single parents, both in the present and in the past, who have raised their children perfectly normal. Not every single parent is a single parent by choice either. I guess all those 9/11 widows are going to ruin their children's futures, right?

That's where we're better off leaving this issue to the professionals. Credible psychologists have found nothing wrong with same-sex parenting. The gloom-and-doom scenario didn't happen. Sorry to disappoint all those who want it to be a disaster.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:24 AM   #253
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I'm apparently on AEON's ignore list...

His lost.
You are not on my ignore list. I just can't remain logged in and answer every single question from every single poster. I have to try my best to answer those that will keep the thread somewhat on track. I am trying not to open another can of worms.

I mean no disrespect.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:28 AM   #254
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:27 PM
the other thing about gay parents.

if you've got enough $$$, you can have a baby of your own, no need for adoption, so what are you going to do -- pass laws that would prevent a lesbian woman from hiring a sperm doner or prevent her partner/spouse from being able to adopt her partner/spouse's biological child?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2006, 11:41 AM   #255
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: 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the other thing about gay parents.

if you've got enough $$$, you can have a baby of your own, no need for adoption, so what are you going to do -- pass laws that would prevent a lesbian woman from hiring a sperm doner or prevent her partner/spouse from being able to adopt her partner/spouse's biological child?
Don't put it past them.


Didn't that lovely state of Virginia try to specifically ban gay couples from owning property together, while allowing any other sort of non-married patnerships to go ahead?
__________________

__________________
martha 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 12:27 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