Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law - 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 10-03-2004, 07:10 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
This is God's world. and God gives us the rules for living in His world in the bible.
Are you aware of the fact that the VAST majority of Christians are Catholics (roughly 1 billion) and that they do not believe the Bible to be the final authority? Nor do the Eastern Rite Christians. About 400 million Protestants believe it, and 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Eastern Rite Christians do not. So when you make a statement like you just did, you are actually referring to the belief of a minority of Christian sects and denominations.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 07:17 PM   #137
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
marriage /marij/n. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
-reader's digest oxford complete wordfinder 1996

this appeats to be a clear and objective definition of the word, or is the oxford university press homophobic as well?
If you notice the definitions and even the words in dictionaries change over time. Meanings do not remain static in a living language, and english is a living language.

As to the religious references you give...I am not discussing religious marriage, but civil (and I know you weren't directly responding to me). Churches and other religious organizations can do what they wish in regard to what they consider to be a valid marriage in their view. But this is not a religious law, it has to cover all people, not just those who are religious.

Besides, who are you to determine who is "truly a Christian" and who isn't? Do you have a direct line to God these days?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 07:39 PM   #138
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 04:13 AM
yes, as a matter of fact, God has given humanity "a direct line" to Himself, it is the Bible. and as for those groups who no longer accept the Bible to be the final authority: 1. they are Christian in name only. 2. what is is the "final authority" if it is not the word of God?

indra, don't believe me to be so base as to believe that homosexuals should be outcast from society. they are people (sinful people) just like myself. it is not my job to judge them. i am not however, going to tolerate immorality, and when the question arises i am not afraid to state that i believe homosexuality is wrong.

that being said, i can say that i would support some kind of manner for the transfer of wealth/power of attorney thing that you say is the main problem with gays not being able to marry. if they want to be able to have control over there financial lives, and let there partner have a stake in it as well, fantastic. but why call it marriage? i think a civil-union would be able to accomplish these purposes rather nicely. if they insist on it being called marriage, i have to believe there are some motives for that beyond the ones that you laid out.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 07:51 PM   #139
Refugee
 
-macphisto-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,401
Local Time: 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Are you aware of the fact that the VAST majority of Christians are Catholics (roughly 1 billion) and that they do not believe the Bible to be the final authority? Nor do the Eastern Rite Christians. About 400 million Protestants believe it, and 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Eastern Rite Christians do not. So when you make a statement like you just did, you are actually referring to the belief of a minority of Christian sects and denominations.
Where the heck do you get those statistics? If your going to say something like that please tell us(me) your resources.

Very interesting topic, very controversial also. I personally believe the bible and try to live it's teachings. I am not racial, or prejudice in any way. But I have my own ideas and thoughts on this issue that comes from the bible that I believe is the word of god as long as it is translated correctly. I use the King James version of the bible since it has been translated the least of the bibles, and isnt translated to suit the beliefs of a religion alone.

If any of you do believe in the bible, here are some refrences where I stand on this-
Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13
Romans 1:27
1 Cor. 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Jude 1:7
If you are interested have a look, I will not post the scriptures to not offend anyone.
__________________
-macphisto- is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:29 PM   #140
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Just to clarify my stance on this once and for all: I do not give a flying f**k what the Bible says about homosexuality. I am not a Christian and the Bible's view on this is therefore completely irrelevant to me and should be to our lawmakers as well as they are not here to create laws for the masses based on the Bible or any religious text. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin then I suggest that you do not engage in homosexual activities but do not try to impose your religous beliefs on other people. It's really quite simple actually.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:33 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave


Jesus did not 'tolerate' everyone and everything. He did not tolerate the money changers, the Pharisees, the prostitutes - I do not doubt that he loved them as people, but he also said to 'go and sin no more'.
Jesus broke bread with tax collectors and prostitutes. To my knowledge he never spoke once on homosexuality...not a word. I do remember him saying that the greatest commandments were to love the lord god and to love your neighbor as yourself.

anyway, i think the issue is not with the dictionary definition of marriage. the real issue here is with the economic benefits that the state attributes to a marriage.

i think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:47 PM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


anyway, i think the issue is not with the dictionary definition of marriage. the real issue here is with the economic benefits that the state attributes to a marriage.

i think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.
I agree with this, as long as it applies to all couples (and I really think it should).
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:48 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


I think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.
Do you mean only giving out civil union certificates to both gay and straight couples? If so, I agree. But allowing straight couples to marry while only granting civil unions to gay couples would be the 'separate but equal' philosophy which has never worked. It's the same as 'we'll let you on the bus but you have to sit in the back.'
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:53 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Do you mean only giving out civil union certificates to both gay and straight couples? If so, I agree. But allowing straight couples to marry while only granting civil unions to gay couples would be the 'separate but equal' philosophy which has never worked. It's the same as 'we'll let you on the bus but you have to sit in the back.'
do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 08:54 PM   #145
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
If you believe that homosexuality is a sin then I suggest that you do not engage in homosexual activities but do not try to impose your religous beliefs on other people. It's really quite simple actually.
That about sums it up for me too.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 09:02 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 05:13 AM
I've been attempting to stay out of this for the most part so far, but I can't resist now.

Let it be known before I begin where I stand on this issue. I am 18 years old, I am an agnostic, and I fully support gay marriage. I am straight and have a steady girlfriend.

I'm gonna go back and pick apart a few of the things I found particularly of note:

Quote:
Originally posted by shrmn8rpoptart
indra, don't believe me to be so base as to believe that homosexuals should be outcast from society. they are people (sinful people) just like myself. it is not my job to judge them.
And yet, you're doing exactly that...

Quote:
i am not however, going to tolerate immorality, and when the question arises i am not afraid to state that i believe homosexuality is wrong.

that being said, i can say that i would support some kind of manner for the transfer of wealth/power of attorney thing that you say is the main problem with gays not being able to marry. if they want to be able to have control over there financial lives, and let there partner have a stake in it as well, fantastic. but why call it marriage? i think a civil-union would be able to accomplish these purposes rather nicely. if they insist on it being called marriage, i have to believe there are some motives for that beyond the ones that you laid out.
What motives? Do you think that gays who want to get married secretly hate the institution of straight marriage and want to destroy it from the inside? Or could the underlying motive be (gasp) equality?

Quote:
marriage /marij/n. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
-reader's digest oxford complete wordfinder 1996

this appeats to be a clear and objective definition of the word, or is the oxford university press homophobic as well?
1996. That definition was written at LEAST 8 years ago. How many places on Earth had legalised same-sex marriage 8 years ago? I don't think (although I could be wrong) that there was even one. So there goes that argument.

Quote:
okay, first off, if you are truly a Christian, then you know that this is not your world. you don't make the rules. you don't decide what is a sin and what isn't. this is not your Christian world. This is God's world. and God gives us the rules for living in His world in the bible.
And that is your opinion, not hard fact, so don't present it that way.

Quote:
so let's see what the Bible has to say on the issue of tolerance...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 5:17-19

so, what does the Law that Christ says that we still have to follow say?

"do not commit adultery" -exodus 20:14 (adultery is used to define any sexual act outside of the bounds of marriage)

so the Bible says that homosexual sex is wrong, along with any heterosexual sex outside of marraige.

throughout the gospels, Jesus also references Sodom and Gomorrah as places of immorality that received a just punnishment. (Mt. 10:15, Mt. 11:23, Lk 17:29 for example)
You have to realize that the vast majority of folks in support of same-sex marriage are not Christians. Therefore the Bible has no (or extremely little) moral sway over us and we have a hard time listening to Bible quotes as argument, based as they are on something intangible (God). Heck, historians can't even use the Bible as a decent primary source because there is very very little that can be proven in the Bible. And that that can be proven are historical events cross-referenced in other areas (the Babylonian exile, for example). So the Bible is a pretty shabby spot (based on a logical view) to be pulling arguments from.

Quote:
second of all...Christ does indeed love us all. but he is not tolerant in the least.
I would say the majority of Christians would disagree with that statement (the "not tolerant" part).

Quote:
k, let me explain my position on why homosexuality is wrong. i am a Christian (i know the mention of this word upsets people), and therefore have some very distinct views on issues. the fact is, is homosexuality is a sin. but, in God's eyes, all sins carry an equal weight. that is to say, someone having homosexual sex, in my mind is no worse a sin than my own sins (and believe me, not a minute goes by where i am not comitting a sin of one form or another).
You have just defeated your own argument. You say that someone having homosexual sex is no worse than any sin you commit. So therefore you just effectively have placed yourself on an equal plane as homosexuals and, by default, you have no justification for arguing against homosexuality.

Quote:
i believe that all people sin, and therefore all deserve eternal punnishment as a result. the only that saves someone from this punnishment is the salvation of Christ. this salvation is freely given to all, yet we have a chance to deny it. we deny it by failing to repent for our sins. by denying Christ, we're saying that we would rather stand alone before God (or that a judgement is never coming anyway, because God does not exist, so it doesn't matter anyway). if one does this, then that's exactly what happens, they are forced to stand before God and be held accountable for their sins. however, if a person does not deny Christ, and repents of his/her sins, then Christ will defend them on judgement day, and the will be found innocent through Christ.
Well-stated on your beliefs.

Quote:
so...if homosexual sex is a sin (which it is, the only acceptable sex as defined by the Bible, is sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marraige)
Opinion. Don't present it as fact.

Quote:
then the person commiting the act is in need of forgiveness. yet, if the person has no knowledge that this act is wrong, why would they ask for forgiveness? this is the problem with legalizing homosexuality, it openly states that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and thus removes the need to repent of the sin, which in turn becomes the government preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now this one is a bit of a stretch. Saying that the government is "preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven" by legalising same-sex marriage is a BIG logic jump. The government, by legalising same-sex marriage, is not preventing anything. By saying that an act of government "removes the need to repent of the sin" says that they church and Christianity as a whole is effectively impotent in keeping and getting new believers, and that the numbers within the church are directly related to acts of government, passing legislation on key issues the church agrees/disagrees with. You are in effect lumping together church and state. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Quote:
i also find it odd that people would argue that someone in a homosexual relationship would argue that they deserve a governmental protection to do so.
It's not about "protection". It's about rights of marriage that are in statute law, in regards to relation with the spouse (child custody, divorce laws, visitation, financial laws, etc.). Someone already went into detail about this so I won't ramble about that.

Quote:
is there a law that prevents these people from having homosexual sex? no.
Ever hear of sodomy laws?

Quote:
is there a law that prevents them from living together? no.
Of course not. There are no laws that would prevent Michael Jackson from living with Hitler, Idi Amin, and Attila the Hun if he so wished. But that's all tenancy laws. You can choose a roommate, or live-in boyfriend/girlfriend, if you so wish.

Quote:
plus, i hear many people arguing that marraige is an outdated, archaic, institution, that is mostly religiously based, and no longer holds relevance today. if this is the case, why would such progressive minded people like yourselves want to allign yourself with an institution that you find so abhorrent to begin with.
I don't believe that marriage is outdated or anything. But I can see why someone who does could still argue for same-sex marriage. Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." People don't have to believe in the institution of marriage for themselves to argue for equal rights among those who do.

Quote:
and as to the issue of whether or not someone who believes homosexual sex is morally wrong hates gay people or not--i believe you have your definitions confused. i do not harbor fear or hatred towards gays, i simply have an aversion to their behavior. there is a difference.
You're right, there is a difference. I haven't really seen anything you've said whereby I'd say you're homophobic.

AussieU2fanman, on the other hand, has said some VERY homophobic things.

Quote:
i would also ask this question-when you argue for these people's "freedom to do what they want" are you arguing that they have a right to happiness?
Are you saying that homosexuals don't have a right to be happy?

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I'm not picking you apart personally, shrmn8r...it's just that you've been posting more recently and I really don't want to go back through 9 pages of posts for Aussie's. I also want to make it clear that I'm not bashing Christianity in any way, shape, or form with this post. People have a right to believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe in Christianity, Atheism, Zoroastrianism, or even that pink aliens come down nightly and play rock shows in bars in Kuala Lumpur and should be worshipped, well then that's your prerogative and it's not my business to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe. I just want to let you know that I am not trying to come off as anti-Christianity in any of my arguments above.

I highly encourage anyone to go ahead and try and refute some of my points, I love a good debate.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 10-03-2004, 09:02 PM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.
Clears it up nicely for me, and I agree. Civil unions for the secular world and marriages for religious purposes. There! Problem solved!
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 09:06 PM   #148
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


AussieU2fanman, on the other hand, has said some VERY homophobic things.

Back that up or don't say it. Once again people are confusing homophobia with personal beliefs about why it's immoral......
This hasn't happened before
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 09:11 PM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:13 PM
What the hell do you mean confusing homophobia and personal belief, homophobia is a personal belief.

If I believed that all black people were pimps and crackheads would I not be a racist?

Exactly the same principle, you have made some sweeping accusations about Gays attempting to convert heterosexual individuals and their lives being totally immoral and yet you turn around and tell us that it is belief, nothing more. There is a big hole in that logic train.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-03-2004, 09:17 PM   #150
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.
Yes, very clear and I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.
True. I was speaking about the state doing that.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl 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 05:13 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