Is same sex marriage a positive ideology?
Same sex marriage is simply a perversion of the mind.
You're welcome to that opinion.
Why are people denying the truth just to state that they are in the 21st century?
Because it's not the truth. It's merely your opinion about what ought to be.
(This is an example of what is known in philosophy as the is/ought gap.)
Does being in the 21st century make us to be less human and more animistic in our sexual orientation regarding marriage?
Why, have you noticed yourself becoming more animalistic and less human from 2001 to now?
They are more questions than answers in this forum, i need someone to talk some senses,
Vision. Taste. Smell. Oh, wait...You meant you need someone to talk some sense! Dude, I and others have been doing so all along. Haven't you been paying attention?
we all need to be mindful about the way we go about discharging this thing we call freedom of expression. Because it has been abuse in n small measure.
Says the pot.
I encourage you to keep participating in forums like this, because this is where you put your beliefs to the test. At the end of the day you are either going to be more committed to your beliefs or you will be enlightened to consider where there might be flaws in your original state of mind. Take the "hits" and respond accordingly.
There are two sides to every coin. Which side do you stand on? That's the question. People are answering. That's what these forums are for. It's stimulating. My horizons have been expanded for coming here and reading what others have to say about the question. In fact, I just learned that people really do marry dogs! I didn't know that before coming to this forum. I've been enlightened! My world view has been expanded.
Listen, you have a right to your opinion. Likewise, so does everyone else in the forums. Embrace it.
Stand up for what you believe in and defend your opinion to the end. That is, defend your opinion until your mind has been swayed to the other side. There is but one world and we all live in it at the same time. Who's right? Who's wrong? I'm not the judge. And, neither is anyone else the judge. But, we all have opinions and we are all entitled to them.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it... until I change my mind.
"Epistemologically, the combination of gay-marriage is akin to coining the work “dog-cat,” unless one redefines the term marriage, gay-marriage is just a phrase of convenience. As there is no such thing as a dog-cat, there is by definition no such things as gay-marriage."
Well, this is more of a semantic question than an epistemological one, I would argue, but then, as a linguist I'm fond of arguing semantics.
But if a marriage is what a man and a woman create when they promise to love honor and cherish one another in sickness and health, in wealth and in want, forsaking all others, as long as they both live, why is it that a pair of men or a pair of woman cannot create the same covenant with each other?
What exactly is it that makes it impossible for two men or two women to be joined in marriage?
"Now this leads to the second issue, cultural: The question is why was marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman in the first place, culturally, on the social level?"
Well, your answer is an oversimplification, probably because your question is oversimplified. Marriages have not always been between one man and one woman since mankind has existed. For a long time, and in many places, 'marriage' could involve many different partners, and could have also involved a set of acknowledged concubines who were not part of the marriage contract. Most marriages had the creation of children (specifically male heirs) as a goal, but they also were done to seal treaties between tribes, or to merge the lands (or other wealth) of two families, or various other reasons.
The idea of two people marrying merely because they love one another is a very recent phenomenon. The limitation of one spouse of each sex is also fairly recent (though an older idea than a purely romantic marriage).
See, the problem with the arguments that say "We can't let gays get married because that's not what a marriage traditionally is," is that most of the people making those arguments don't really know what the marriage tradition has been over the course of history. Even the Bible is full of marriages that are completely "untraditional" in that they involve more than two spouses.
The real question to ask is this: what real harm does it do when two members of the same sex get married? The answer is "No harm at all."
Now as what harm it does when society prevents to members of the same sex from getting married? It makes those two people pretty miserable, for one thing. It makes their lives more difficult, it makes it harder for them to jointly own property, and so on and so forth. There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage outside of religious dogma.
And while I have great respect for religious teachings, I also hold that you should not have to be required to obey the teachings of my religion.
We let stores sell kosher and halal meats, but that hasn't led to all meats sold in the USA being kosher or halal, has it? (Though it might be healthier for society if they were....) We let people get divorced, although divorce is specifically forbidden by scripture, and not everybody gets divorced.
Of course, the next argument is going to be that legalizing divorce caused the divorce rate to skyrocket, so legalizing gay marriage will cause gay marriages to skyrocket, too. Well, sure it will. See, legalized divorce didn't make more people want to get one. It just let the people who wanted to get one have one. So instead of having millions of people living in bad marriages, maybe abusive marriages, and just suffering, they get to have a divorce and live a better life (at least, a better life than they were living when they were with their abusive, self-destructive, inattentive [or whatever shortcomings their spouse had] spouse).
So of course if gay marriage is legalized, the gay marriage rate will go way up. Not because suddenly more people want to get gay married, but because all the people who currently want to get gay married will be able to do so. (and they'll hire caterers, florists, stationers, etc, because the weddings will have to be nothing less than fabulous! )
And wait a few years. Eventually about 20-30% of the folks who get gay married will want to get gay-divorced, and you know gay divorce court would be one of the most-watched shows on TV, generating millions in ad revenue.
See, gay marriage could save the economy.Don't forget New York!
- brotheryochananposted 13 years ago
0you seem to think that just because same sex people get married this marriage is far better or has better chances than two heteros getting married,No, I never said anything of the kind. If anything, I think they've got about the same chance of making a go of it as any hetero couple.
There are no statistics that support gay marriages having any more success rate than hetero marriages.
Well, that's 'cos there aren't too many gay marriages.
Since people are impressionable to some extent or another, .... it may show a much different rate of acceleration over time.
What, you're worried that people are going to start turning gay? I must respectfully disagree with your speculation.
As you say gay people are born to straight families but how much more the chance of gay people being born to gay families or adopting gay family values.
Well given that hetero is the default setting of our culture, and that gay people have been joked about, persecuted, and even disowned by their families, and yet there are still gay people in the world, somehow I doubt that being raised by a pair of lesbians is going to make anyone who is born straight become gay.
"As a deep thinking person i am sure you have already thought about these scenarios and just forgot to include them in your response."
No, I've thought about them, and I didn't 'forget' to include them. I gave them as much weight as they deserve: none at all.
Because they make no logical sense, given the way the real world works. Gay marriage isn't going to turn the world gay, gay parents aren't going to raise gay kids any more than straight parents can turn their gay kids straight.
Why dont us gay, bi, Lesbian, Trans and any heterosexual who does not judge people and considers themselves to be "Metrosexual" and just get together and start our own religion? I mean we would be the third largest religion in the world and at least that way we could have Gay Marriage without our lives being debated not just our right to marry! At least then we could give the Christians something to be worried about.
thank you
"If someone correct you on what is wrong, i think it is civility for you to acknowledge it without resorting to name calling"
Sure, but what if the person 'correcting' you is even wronger?
I've read Genesis, too. If we are going to use "the Old Testament" as a template for modern behavior, I assume that procreation also means bedding your servants and maids and bearing children out of wedlock. Abraham and Jacob did!
I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger is truly a holy man.
Jeff, I'm not bothering anyone. Sorry you feel threatened. It appears to be the other way around. I was participating in this thread, and out of nowhere, a few of you attempt to team up on me.
Oh well, I'm not surprised. God bless.Jeff, I'm not bothering anyone.
If you're trying to make people live according to your interpretation of scripture, you kind of are. I was under the impression that you thought same-sex marriage should be forbidden, because of what you believe God thinks of it. If I was wrong about that, then you have my apologies.
Sorry you feel threatened.
Uh, the hummingbird has a blue spatula? (Aren't non-sequiturs confusing?)
I was participating in this thread, and out of nowhere, a few of you attempt to team up on me.
You seem to be confusing "a lot of people disagreeing with you" for "a bunch of people teaming up on you."
I mean, by that standard, I could say that you, brotheryochan, felixdet, et. al, are 'teaming up on me.'
Wait...you aren't teaming up on me, are you?.
No, I respectfully disagree. As I have stated before, I have a relationship with Christ and it's not shaped by my church teachings. Sorry you are unable to understand this. By the way, this thread is not about divorce, and you tend to twist what the bible says about divorce and read half of what is written. Oh, well, I'm not about to go around in circles with you again . Try not to falsely label me as being hateful to others here on this forum as you have cleverly done before. That's ok. I'm not mad at you. Have a nice day.
Freedom is a birth right for an individual but in the name of freedom an individual has no right to carry out the act in the infringement of other’s right. And that's why it's wrong to forbid two consenting adults from marrying.
When you polluted the atmosphere with the violent display of Gay Marriage, are you not destroying the atmosphere?
When you show me an analysis of the Gay Marriage particulate in the atmosphere (in parts per million) and its effect on animal and plant life, global weather patterns, etc, I'll take that argument seriously. Until then,
By the marriage of the same sex, there is no possibility to produce children as such you are indifferent to the preparation as well as the atmosphere and thereby, are you not indirectly disturbing the society?
Some people have vasectomies to prevent ever having children. Are they indirectly disturbing society? Should vasectomies be banned?
Some hetero couples are infertile, and know they can never produce children. Should their marriages be dissolved, since they must be indirectly disturbing society? Of course not, because they aren't disturbing society at all. And neither would a married gay couple.
By acting like a boy are you not humiliating the right of a boy?
Not even a little bit. When my first son was born, I chose to stay at home and raise the kids while my wife worked. Traditionally, staying at home and raising the kids was something women did, and going to work was something men did. But it made the most sense for our family for me to be the one to stay home, and it's been the most important thing I've ever done in life.
I dare you --I double-dare you-- to say that my decision was somehow humiliating to women.
Go ahead.
Disclaimer: I am not the final word on this subject. I just believe what I believe and pray that I'll be better for it. The thing about divorce and adultery use to scare me because I have divorced and remarried. I use to believe I wasn't going to get to heaven because of that. But then I discovered that there are two parts to the Bible - the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was filled with rules for this and rules for that. It was a time when people were struggling to find a consistent way to live. Think of a bunch of babies trying to grow themselves up. If rules aren’t established, there will be chaos. Then, there is the New Testament. The New Testament is filled with the life of Jesus and about how He was created to “save” us. The New Testament is about love and forgiveness. The New Testament allows me to be forgiven of all things and start anew.
People are going to make mistakes in life. But, now, thanks to forgiveness, when they mess up, if they are repentant, they will be forgiven. So, I got divorced and remarried. I can’t change what already happened. In fact, it happened before I became a self-proclaimed Christian. So, my old life and all the bad things I have done are forgiven. I am a new person. Someone once asked me, “Marlene, if you had claimed yourself to be a Christian in your first marriage, would you have remarried?” That was a critical question (asked in front of my second husband). I answered that I would not have remarried (because I now have knowledge that it is considered a sin). My second husband, who is now an ordained minister, agreed that if we had known that being remarried was considered a sin, we would not be married today.
My point is this… Christianity is all about forgiveness. No one is perfect. We are going to make mistakes. We are going to sin. If the Bible states something as a sin, then it’s a sin. However, all sins can be forgiven. I don’t think people should be held accountable for things they aren’t aware of. But, once they know about it, then they need to make the determination of how they are going to act in relation to that. I’m a little bit OCD, so I read and accept the words in the Bible to be absolute. It’s easier for me to keep on track when I’m not trying to spin the words to fit what I’m doing in my life. Others read the Bible and form their own conclusion which may be different than mine. I’m not going to sit here and say my way is the only way. My way works for me. I won’t know for sure whether I am right or wrong until the end of time. Right?Yep, loud and clear! Very nicely said.
- It's a good think I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!
LOL... I hadn't but I have now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4anFpVsbSw
There were fifth grade boys writing the script for this commercial... the last line that the priest says confirms this... or I have the dirtiest mind in the world.
LMAO. I'm sure he's just that astute that he "tunes" in to the fantasies of "others". (*closes eyes*, did you say leather?
)I can think of plenty of worse places to live. Studs, too. Now I'm really interested.
I find that hard to believe. You, Melissa, maybe many things, boring isn't one of them.
...and you think you have the right to tell someone what they think is sacred or not...how can you seriously claim to know what someone else thinks is sacred (the defining of sacred is itself sacred to each individual...!!!)
that's the mystery of what is sacred sacred it not something to be concerned with being taken away from the individual, its what happens to everyone when their individual sense of sacredness is not accepted as sacred anymore..
when one is "right with God/the Universe" they don't need someone else's sanction on who they are and I think that is a different story all together from the right to legal benefits
- jonnycomelatelyposted 13 years ago0
"I'm all here."
Felix, I am beginning to wonder at that!
And then there is Acts 5:27-29:
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.
Which seems to be entirely contradictory to Mark 12:17. I personally would be more likely to follow Mark in this case, but it seems impossible to follow both. Yet if one doesn't follow both then one is essentially choosing which appeals to him/her most. I'm cool with that but then again I'm not using the bible to prove my personal opinions are right. I acknowledge that they are MY opinions... not God's or Christ's.
As far as God's law and Man's law being different they obviously are right now in the case of gay marriage because it is legal in some places and illegal in others. The only way they COULDN'T be different is if God didn't have an opinion. Abortion laws, the death sentence, child protective service laws etc. could also be seen to be in contrast with Biblical law. Plus there are entire countries where spreading Christianity is punishable by death yet Christians are commanded by God to do such.
I will concede point though in that I shouldn't have used the phrase "most Christian doctrines". "Fundamentalist Christian doctrines" would have been more appropriate.
I am completely willing to concede that point. However, as the two verses most used to prove that homosexuality is an "abomination" are from Leviticus and certainly not included in the Ten Commandments... The American Christian Right is then faced with either accepting them as "God's Laws" or civil laws from a different Continent penned thousands of years ago. If they accept the former then they must accept all the laws as God's word. If it is the later then they must admit religious irrelevance to current society.
I had quoted the verse (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) earlier to prove my point that you either take all laws as being equally relevant or admit that you were cherry picking based on your own opinions. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was nailing down a solid opinion from Felixedet2000 on which side of the fence he stood. Some of the verses that say my divorce was forbidden are: Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9, and Romans 7:2-3. That's a short list because the many verses addressing it all say essentially the same thing. My divorce was not based on adultery and alas my ex still lives.
I'm not sure what the point of those two verses is, but I believe that you are intending to allude to the belief that Christ's death and subsequent resurrection was supposed to was man clean and begin the new covenant. If so than I can concede point -from the viewpoint of Christian theology- to you. Which would... again... mean that the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don't apply. So if we are only referring to the New Testament as being relevant to modern Christians then there is- to my knowledge- absolutely nothing pertaining to homosexuality at all in the NT.
And I don't believe you are being preachy at all. I love a good discussion as long as it is done with respect. I generally will show that respect to those who I deem to be non-judgmental and interested in debate. If I thought you were being preachy then I would have been sarcastic and argumentative.
Edit: I realized I never gave you my definition of Biblical/God's law. To me it really is a POV thing. I don't believe that any such thing exists but I use the term as a catch-all for any beliefs that are being stated as God's beliefs by using biblical verses as reference.
Related Discussions
- 25
Same sex marriage - is it a civil or political issue?
Same sex marriage - is it a civil or political issue?It is my opinion that it is civil enmeshed in political arena simply because of the privileges in a society.
- 21
What this election means for same sex marriage
The election last night proved that same sex marriage now has enough popular support to win elections it looks like all three states passed referendums on same sex marriage a significant milestone towards equality in our nation, as was the whole election, yet another way the GOP is going to have to...
- 12
Can same sex marriage be consumated....?
Can same sex marriage be consummated, as in the sense of a traditional marriage?I just read an interesting Hub - by a New Hubber, with lots of questions and decided to post one of them here, as no one had answered any of them yet. Please comment on question above (it’s not from me, it’s one...
- 715
Vote: no for same sex marriage
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next generation; it's our responsibility to say "no" for same sex because it's...
- 19
How would same-sex marriage affect our society?
How would same-sex marriage affect our society?President Obama just confirmed that he is pro same-sex marriages.
- 26
Do you think that a person who does not agree with same sex marriage is homophob
Do you think that a person who does not agree with same sex marriage is homophobic?