equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by diamond

It's the model that God set.

We do not live in a theocracy.

Next.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by diamond

It's the model that God set.

Which God?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Which God?

this one?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that?

There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...

Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.

So now all those reasons you had in the past about changing definitions, changing it's meaning, keeping the sanctity are all thrown out the window?

So none of that really mattered to you?

True colors...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

this one?

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/god_hates_fags.jpg

That is an unfortunate picture. It is unfortunate because 1) children are involved, and 2) it is not the theology of a God most of us believe in - across the denominations.

It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by AEON

Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...

Are you just making these up? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.

check out the website.

[DrTeeth]

Originally Posted by anitram

Which God?

Whichever one you can make up

I remember a couple of people asking whether gay marriage has demonstrably damaged societies like Canada and the Netherlands. Are we ever going to get an answer to that?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

What about it?

Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed Jeff Jacoby

Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / November 11, 2009
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + ON ELECTION DAY, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter.

Discuss
COMMENTS (602)
“Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?

I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.

But strongly opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean I don’t understand why many people just as strongly favor it. I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who feel demeaned by the law’s rejection of same-sex marriage or who crave the proof of societal acceptance, the cloak of normalcy, that a marriage license would provide. I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue; nor do I buy the argument that laws barring same-sex marriage are comparable to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.

Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light?

In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.

Of course not all proponents of gay marriage display such vehement intolerance. But far too many do to shrug it off as insignificant. And voters don’t have to be paranoid to wonder: If this is the kind of abuse that opponents of gay marriage can be subjected to now, how much more intolerance will dissenters face if gay marriage becomes the law?

After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004.




“Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’

Go Barney.

<>

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

So now all those reasons you had in the past about changing definitions, changing it's meaning, keeping the sanctity are all thrown out the window?

So none of that really mattered to you?

Took quite a leap in logic there, wouldn't you say?

You asked me if my church changed its view on gay marriage would I change my mind. I answered, that I would be skeptical, but open to change. That is true on any theological point. However, at this point in time (and for the foreseeable future) - this particular church stance is unlikely to change.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by diamond

Go Barney.

<>

So, it appears I disagree with Barney on one particular point.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by DrTeeth

Whichever one you can make up

I remember a couple of people asking whether gay marriage has demonstrably damaged societies like Canada and the Netherlands. Are we ever going to get an answer to that?

Yes, the answer was that it would take more than a few years to determine that.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by DrTeeth

I remember a couple of people asking whether gay marriage has demonstrably damaged societies like Canada and the Netherlands. Are we ever going to get an answer to that?

A generation or two, apparently.

So maybe Irvine can get hitched when he's 80.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.

Forgery? What, have you never heard of these people?! They're the ones that protest all the soldiers funerals...

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by AEON

That is an unfortunate picture. It is unfortunate because 1) children are involved, and 2) it is not the theology of a God most of us believe in - across the denominations.

It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.

That's called the Westboro Baptist Church. They're very real, and proud of it. They travel the country to show up at the funerals of homosexuals to stand at the cemetery gates with shirts and signs like these.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Took quite a leap in logic there, wouldn't you say?

You asked me if my church changed its view on gay marriage would I change my mind. I answered, that I would be skeptical, but open to change. That is true on any theological point. However, at this point in time (and for the foreseeable future) - this particular church stance is unlikely to change.

No, not at all.

For years you wanted the state to "protect" marriage in order to keep it's meaning and it's sanctity, but now the church next to yours is going to allow two women to get married, what happened to everything you were fighting for? It sounds like to me that when the state was going to recognize it you wanted to make sure the homos weren't like you, but now that it's only God and the church recognizing it, it doesn't matter... seems pretty odd if you ask me.

[BVS]

Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’

I don't call anyone a bigot because they disagree with me, that's arrogance.

I call people bigots when they practice bigotry, simple as that.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

I don't call anyone a bigot because they disagree with me, that's arrogance.

I call people bigots when they practice bigotry, simple as that.

oh ok, I got it and so does the rest of the USA.

thanks.

<>

[financeguy]

AEON, can you clear some space in your message box dude.